CIP Americashttp://www.cipamericas.org
The Americas ProgramTue, 31 Mar 2015 03:22:37 +0000en-UShourly1Homicides Skyrocket in El Salvadorhttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14826
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14826#commentsTue, 31 Mar 2015 01:58:51 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14826During the last three months of 2014, reports of homicides in El Salvador reached alarming numbers. The year ended with a 57% increase in the murder rate, and the first three months of 2015 have also shown rising numbers.
Authorities at the Security Ministry and the National Civil Police (NCP) attribute the majority of the murders and deaths to gang violence. The director of Legal Aid, Miguel Fortín, affirmed that many of the homicides stem from the incarceration of the leaders of gangs in maximum-security prisons, where they do not have communication with other gang members.
“The majority of the murder victims are part of criminal networks or gangs. Almost all of the people killed are associated with rival gang disputes,” stated the director of the NCP, Mauricio Ramírez Landaverde.
Last year, the official number of homicides was 10.8 daily. On Jan. 8 of this year, the daily murder rate rose to 14, and in the last half of March the number reached 15. The worsening violence in El Salvador, a country with a population slightly higher than six million, has become a major concern to the members of the NCP, district attorneys and national judges. In less than two weeks, eight policemen were killed by gang members.
Some recent publications have predicted that El Salvador will soon surpass Honduras as the most violent country in Central America. But El Salvador’s head district attorney, Luis Martínez, said that the level of violence in Honduras is not comparable because of rampant drug-trafficking there, as opposed to El Salvador’s more local violence.
A few weeks ago the chief prosecutor of the “Life Unit” of Usulutan was murdered. Reports from the NCP attribute the murder to gangs--the police say the attorney was in his vehicle when the perpetrators shot at him from a motorcycle. After this killing, Martínez put out a statement to the gangs: “You chose the wrong target. You don’t mess around with the prosecutor’s office.”
Some weeks beforehand, a criminal judge was attacked in her home. Police reports indicated that perpetrators with gang affiliations arrived at the judge’s residence and shot her in the head as she was leaving her home, they shot her in the head. The judge survived the attack, but her family felt obliged to move out of their home.
After the attacks and killings of police, Security authorities ordered the capture of all gang members responsible for these crimes and for them to be put in maximum-security prisons.The NCP director also gave the green light for any police officer attacked or who feels that his or her life is in danger to return with gunfire. This measure was backed by the government and the Legislative Assembly.
“All of the members of the police department who, for work-related reasons, are forced to employ firearms against a delinquent who is trying to take their life, may do so with the certainty that the establishment is behind you,” stated the director in a message to police forces.
In an interview with the Americas Program, Raúl Mijango, one of the mediators in the national gang truce, blamed the authorities for encouraging the existence of extreme groups charged with assassinating gang members. Linking the new hardline tactics with the rise in current violence, Mijango stated, “it is no accident that this is happening and that the rate of homicides is skyrocketing.” He adds that none of the murders of gang members are being investigated by the authorities.
The director of the NCP has said that the truce agreement ceased to exist when the homicide rate began to climb.
Mijango notes that the Security Ministry and other government agencies have excluded all possibility of dialogue with gangs and are opposed to the truce. He maintains that the gangs are open to working with authorities to reduce the murder rate, but in return must be included in the working groups and the dialogue the government is carrying out to implement security plans and combat violence. At present, mayors, citizens, and business owners are participating in these discussions.
In early March, the leaders of the MS 13 and Barrio 18 gangs who had previously been in medium-security prisons were moved to a maximum-security prison. Being held in the medium-security prisons was part of the “terms granted by the government” so that gang members could initiate a truce to stop try to stop the violence. The maximum-security prison has such strict rules of isolation it is commonly known as “Zacatraz.”
With the transfer to maximum-security, there is speculation that this means the end of the truce since thirty of the most powerful gangs leaders now have no means of communicating with their fellow gang members or their relatives. Critics say that the recent rise in murders is directly related to these gang leaders being locked up in the maximum-security prisons.
To take on matters of violence and the rising murder rate, last September the government created the National Security Council. The Council is made up of state authorities, representatives from private businesses, the Catholic church and civic organizations. The group worked on the policies and the plans to combat violence around the country.
With the creation of the Council, the government has closed all doors to opening up dialogue between gangs and mediators. President Salvador Sánchez Cerén has asserted that the Salvadoran state will not sit down or negotiate with people who have violated the law. He left it in the hands of the Security Council to initiate actions that aim to help reduce homicides in the Central American country.
The transfer of gang leaders to maximum-security prisons was one of the first recommendations of the National Security Council. The Security Minister also requested that the Legislative Assembly approve a transitory reform applicable for the next five years to shorten the time it takes for the judicial process and to more harshly punish gang members responsible for killing police.
Notable among the plans and actions agreed on by the members of the Security Council is the approval of the proposal of the National Association of Private Businesses to hire the former mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, to carry out a security consultation and make recommendations for specific measures, such as he has done in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia and most recently Honduras.
John Huvane, the president of the consulting group headed by the ex-mayor, was in El Salvador last February where he stated that among the changes in the security plans that the Salvadoran government should adopt is to reform juvenile penal laws to make it possible to try all juvenile murder suspects as adults.
However, the Minister of Security has come forward to say that Giuliani’s experience is more focused on a repressive model, while the government’s plans concentrate on inclusiveness and creating opportunities for at-risk youth. He pointed out that the Salvadoran government does not have the financial resources to pay for the plan laid out by the former New York City mayor.
Translation: Emma Doyle]]>During the last three months of 2014, reports of homicides in El Salvador reached alarming numbers. The year ended with a 57% increase in the murder rate, and the first three months of 2015 have also shown rising numbers.
Authorities at the Security Ministry and the National Civil Police (NCP) attribute the majority of the murders and deaths to gang violence. The director of Legal Aid, Miguel Fortín, affirmed that many of the homicides stem from the incarceration of the leaders of gangs in maximum-security prisons, where they do not have communication with other gang members.
“The majority of the murder victims are part of criminal networks or gangs. Almost all of the people killed are associated with rival gang disputes,” stated the director of the NCP, Mauricio Ramírez Landaverde.
Last year, the official number of homicides was 10.8 daily. On Jan. 8 of this year, the daily murder rate rose to 14, and in the last half of March the number reached 15. The worsening violence in El Salvador, a country with a population slightly higher than six million, has become a major concern to the members of the NCP, district attorneys and national judges. In less than two weeks, eight policemen were killed by gang members.
Some recent publications have predicted that El Salvador will soon surpass Honduras as the most violent country in Central America. But El Salvador’s head district attorney, Luis Martínez, said that the level of violence in Honduras is not comparable because of rampant drug-trafficking there, as opposed to El Salvador’s more local violence.
A few weeks ago the chief prosecutor of the “Life Unit” of Usulutan was murdered. Reports from the NCP attribute the murder to gangs--the police say the attorney was in his vehicle when the perpetrators shot at him from a motorcycle. After this killing, Martínez put out a statement to the gangs: “You chose the wrong target. You don’t mess around with the prosecutor’s office.”
Some weeks beforehand, a criminal judge was attacked in her home. Police reports indicated that perpetrators with gang affiliations arrived at the judge’s residence and shot her in the head as she was leaving her home, they shot her in the head. The judge survived the attack, but her family felt obliged to move out of their home.
After the attacks and killings of police, Security authorities ordered the capture of all gang members responsible for these crimes and for them to be put in maximum-security prisons.The NCP director also gave the green light for any police officer attacked or who feels that his or her life is in danger to return with gunfire. This measure was backed by the government and the Legislative Assembly.
“All of the members of the police department who, for work-related reasons, are forced to employ firearms against a delinquent who is trying to take their life, may do so with the certainty that the establishment is behind you,” stated the director in a message to police forces.
In an interview with the Americas Program, Raúl Mijango, one of the mediators in the national gang truce, blamed the authorities for encouraging the existence of extreme groups charged with assassinating gang members. Linking the new hardline tactics with the rise in current violence, Mijango stated, “it is no accident that this is happening and that the rate of homicides is skyrocketing.” He adds that none of the murders of gang members are being investigated by the authorities.
The director of the NCP has said that the truce agreement ceased to exist when the homicide rate began to climb.
Mijango notes that the Security Ministry and other government agencies have excluded all possibility of dialogue with gangs and are opposed to the truce. He maintains that the gangs are open to working with authorities to reduce the murder rate, but in return must be included in the working groups and the dialogue the government is carrying out to implement security plans and combat violence. At present, mayors, citizens, and business owners are participating in these discussions.
In early March, the leaders of the MS 13 and Barrio 18 gangs who had previously been in medium-security prisons were moved to a maximum-security prison. Being held in the medium-security prisons was part of the “terms granted by the government” so that gang members could initiate a truce to stop try to stop the violence. The maximum-security prison has such strict rules of isolation it is commonly known as “Zacatraz.”
With the transfer to maximum-security, there is speculation that this means the end of the truce since thirty of the most powerful gangs leaders now have no means of communicating with their fellow gang members or their relatives. Critics say that the recent rise in murders is directly related to these gang leaders being locked up in the maximum-security prisons.
To take on matters of violence and the rising murder rate, last September the government created the National Security Council. The Council is made up of state authorities, representatives from private businesses, the Catholic church and civic organizations. The group worked on the policies and the plans to combat violence around the country.
With the creation of the Council, the government has closed all doors to opening up dialogue between gangs and mediators. President Salvador Sánchez Cerén has asserted that the Salvadoran state will not sit down or negotiate with people who have violated the law. He left it in the hands of the Security Council to initiate actions that aim to help reduce homicides in the Central American country.
The transfer of gang leaders to maximum-security prisons was one of the first recommendations of the National Security Council. The Security Minister also requested that the Legislative Assembly approve a transitory reform applicable for the next five years to shorten the time it takes for the judicial process and to more harshly punish gang members responsible for killing police.
Notable among the plans and actions agreed on by the members of the Security Council is the approval of the proposal of the National Association of Private Businesses to hire the former mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, to carry out a security consultation and make recommendations for specific measures, such as he has done in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia and most recently Honduras.
John Huvane, the president of the consulting group headed by the ex-mayor, was in El Salvador last February where he stated that among the changes in the security plans that the Salvadoran government should adopt is to reform juvenile penal laws to make it possible to try all juvenile murder suspects as adults.
However, the Minister of Security has come forward to say that Giuliani’s experience is more focused on a repressive model, while the government’s plans concentrate on inclusiveness and creating opportunities for at-risk youth. He pointed out that the Salvadoran government does not have the financial resources to pay for the plan laid out by the former New York City mayor.
Translation: Emma Doyle]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14826/feed0José Mujica, from armed struggle to the presidencyhttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14708
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14708#commentsWed, 18 Mar 2015 13:13:14 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14708Author’s note: President “Pepe”. When used like that, it sounds like an electoral slogan. But Jose Mujica is about to conclude – on Mar. 1 – his term as President and he’s more “Pepe” than ever. In more than half a century as a journalist, I have had the opportunity to meet or mingle with all manner of leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Raul Alfonsín, to Fidel Castro, Mijail Gorbachov, “Lula”, François Mitterand, Sandro Pertini, Michèle Bachelet and Carlos Menem, but “Pepe” breaks the mold. On Feb. 11, at 10:00 in the morning, the Swiss journalist Camilla Landbö, photographer Oscar Bonilla, coordinator Fasano Mertens, presidential press secretary of Uruguay Joaquín Costanzo and myself arrived at “Pepe’s” very simple, blooming farm just a few miles outside of Montevideo. Out comes the President to greet us wearing his untucked button-down with sleeves rolled up over a pair of jeans, shoes half untied and a baseball cap. He says hello, exchanges handshakes, and we sit down under a tree where he grabs a thermos and begins to serve “mates” for the whole crew. Every now and then he interrupts to ask Bonilla for some tobacco and paper to roll up a smoke. But in spite of what this description might suggest, there was not a bit of posing, or anything picturesque about “Pepe” Mujica. Breathing, sweating, he exudes an authenticity demonstrated in all aspects of his life and, of course, by his deeds and words. He freely expresses the limitations and problems of his administration in an intellectual style with an everyman touch. “Pepe” is one of those rare Marxists that gets the humanist materialism of Marx and attempts to make it relevant to today’s world. A cultured and profoundly honest and sincere man, whether you agree or disagree with what he says. “Pepe”, President of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. C.G.Interview with José Mujica, President of UruguayCG (Carlos Gabetta): Let’s start with the formalities: what’s the proper way to address you? Should we call you President, Mr. Mujica, José, or…
JM(José Mujica): Pepe… and we’ll use “tu” (an informal conversation style - tn).
CG: Thanks, Pepe. Let’s get started then. For a man such as yourself, who struggled through the ‘70’s for urgent and definitive political, economic and social change; for a revolution, which cost you among other things 15 years in jail…. What does it mean, now years later after these experiences, to be elected President, to find yourself at the head of a center-left coalition, with partners that have different ideas, and with this responsibility to govern?
JM: Humans, just like any other living creature, we love life very much. So we wanted a perfect world. In the end we suffered quite bit, but mainly because we weren’t quick enough, and they caught us (laughing), not because we were heroes. But that’s where we started to reevaluate the meaning of life, nothing more and nothing less… It’s worth fighting for people to have a bit more food, a better roof over their heads, better health, better education, and to be able to spend their days on this earth the best they can. So nothing is more beautiful, more precious than life… And that’s true under capitalism, it was so under feudalism, and it was also true for primitive man… and it will continue to be so under socialism. There’s nothing like life…That’s what we learned in those years, that life itself is the main value, and in any case the second value is society.
That’s why now we go more slowly, but firmly, trying to fortify the transformations that are relevant; slowly, because they need to be consensual; and not so definitive, because death is really the only thing definitive…
CG: What you say could be understood, to translate, as adapting to reality…
JM: One never ceases to adapt to reality, it’s so complex… It’s a way of looking at the world… some see it through a religious equation, others strictly ideologically… I myself feel more and more closer to the old philosophers like Seneca, or Epicurus, or like….
CG: Heraclitus….
JM: Yes… Of course, there are convictions, an intellectual trajectory that one won’t abandon, but we shouldn’t be so schematic… I think that man, being the animal that he is, with the kind of hard-drive that we have inside, is essentially sociable; he’s not feline, but anthropologically socialist. In what way? Man needs a community to live in; he can’t live in isolation, there’s a deep dependence on the social group. 90% of our human existence was lived in a primitive state; there was no distinction between what’s mine and yours. Property, competition and all that came later. The development of civilization brought about individuality; the later idea of the selfish individual is modern, capitalist. We are capitalists as a result of historical formation, because we are living at this point of civilizational development.
_____________________________________________________________________________

“It’s worth fighting for people to have a bit more food, a better roof over their heads, better health, better education, and be able to spend their days on this earth the best they can.”

____________________________________________________________________________CG: A few days ago I read a statement of yours: “we will be at war until Nature demands that we become civilized”…
JM: Yes, that’s how we’re headed. Capitalism, like everything, is contradictory. On the one hand, you have the injustice, the inequality, the wars; but that selfishness we have inside is a powerful motor, that has led to the development of science, technology, and all that right? Capitalism has given us many a scourge, but it gave us 40 more years of average lifespan in the last century… what do you make of it? Now it seems that it’s given all it has to give; the logical step would be for democratic socialism to replace it, but historical timeframes are long. Capitalism developed during three centuries without any political democracy…
CG: At any point did you say something like “no use crying over your problems; you have to face them”..
JM: Yes, the trick is finding the way…
CG: Precisely, and now in a government such as the one you head, how are these contradictions resolved?
JM: They get negotiated as best they can, trying to contribute towards making society as equitable as possible, constantly intervening with fiscal and social policies, encouraging workers to organize so that they can negotiate the cost of their own labor. Because at the end of the day, the greatest factor of distribution in society, at least in ours today, is one’s salary. It’s not the only one, and of course it has a limit, because if I put my hand too deep into the pockets of those who need to invest, they don’t invest and I end up with less to redistribute…You see the human and practical result of the hurried, “definitive” experiments of socialism: in the end they had less to divvy up.
CG: And they were also undemocratic experiments…
JM: Of course, because when you run out of everything, you have to fall back on the firmness of repression… But the worst of that socialism is the bureaucracy…Instead of depending on the producers, you begin to rely on the supervisors…. Capitalism has the problems we all know of, but there’s always something to learn, even from the enemy. You have to learn from intelligence, not stupidity.
CG: How far has the Broad Front (Frente Amplio) advanced and what’s left for it to do?
JM: The problem is that we have an inheritance, which is normal. From around the ‘40’s – the dates can be somewhat arbitrary – in Uruguay democracy began to soften; we fell into clientelisms, using the State as a means of employing many people, too many people, and so it began to lose competitiveness.
Due to this “protectionism” towards the people that worked, we created a category of practically untouchable bureaucrats whose livelihood is guaranteed; after starting out in government, within 40 years they retire and nobody touches them, regardless of what they do. The State lost its vigor, and obviously the labor unions defended these “victories”, by which they themselves turned into defenders of the status quo which tied up the State… So addressing that in Uruguay is like starting a revolution… And so, we got about halfway there.
The Broad Front tried to strengthen the victories while being less demagogic, trying to use and do things a bit better, but we have to transform the state, to start this revolution. We have the tools, but we need to come to an agreement: in addition to Energy, Communications, etc., the State has in its hands the primary bank of the country; 60% of banking transactions are in the hands of the State and we (the BF, editor’s note) are still demanding to “nationalize the banks”…
Why would you nationalize the Banks? The state bank has to function under a “zero exceptions” regimen, to the extent that the private banking sector has no other option than to accept the rules of the game. This is one of the challenges that lies ahead.
CG: As in Chile, and contrary to the case with Argentina, in Uruguay the crimes from the dictatorship of the ‘70’s benefitted from an expiration law, approved by referendum…
JM: I think the people of Uruguay were afraid… but with good humor, in a way decided to “swallow the bitter pill”… Very hard and difficult, but it prioritized tranquility.
CG:But then later the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional some parts of that Full stop law, to use that term. How was this issue handled within your government?
JM: The problem is complex. On the one hand, the criminals would never accuse themselves; on the other, they left very few clues, I would say none, that would permit justice to be fully carried out, which would rightfully keep us busy for quite some time. Truth and justice tend to be contradictory and the problem lies in the political divisions and the disputes, grievances, that this generates in society when the situation is prolonged over time. Look at Argentina, they started out well, but then began mucking things up with such a generalized and massive effort where thirty years have passed leaving many loose ends and rough spots along the way… Not in Uruguay… We had violence and dictatorship, but then the people decided to forget it, if you like. We’ll have to see how this gets resolved institutionally with regards to the Supreme Court.
Also, on the subject of justice and not only referring to the crimes from the dictatorship, Uruguay functions under a system appropriate to the past, but not with the changes necessary for the present. In Uruguay today, if you want to impose a tax on land, on concentrated landholdings, they put an end to that by declaring it unconstitutional. As with anywhere in the world and as is typical in history, the system of jurisprudence was conceived and set up by the dominant classes, the conservative caste. We have to deal with this; we have not transformed it. We (the BF, editor’s note) for some time now should have pushed for a constitutional reform, because if you don’t change the instruments of justice, later you will find yourself trapped in these contradictions, by a very formidable wall. Justice, like the lady they show with a blindfold over her eyes and scales in her hands… that doesn’t exist, because the justice system reflects the weight of the classes that dominate the society. The instruments of justice are burdened by history, and that is the history of class struggle… All of this is influenced by politics. I don’t think a more political act exists other than a revolution, and all the revolutions have been foundations of law, sources of jurisprudence. In other words the or those classes that predominate, are those that establish the laws. That’s what we need now, democratic changes - meaning approved by the majority - to the very root, that reflect and at the same time allow for those changes that Uruguay needs at the present time.
CG: Marx would agree with you.
JM: Better yet, I agree with Marx…
CG: I would like to move to a regional topic, Pepe. Mercosur, for example, which was created in 1989 and still has not moved beyond a few commercial and tariff agreements, which at any rate don’t work very well… What do you think about these organizations, of their present status, of what they should become?
JM: In South America, and in all of Latin America, we have a great challenge ahead. If we do not create mechanisms that continue to integrate us, that can provide us with a greater international presence, we will end up like so many leaves blowing in the wind. It’s obvious that in today’s world gigantic blocks are being formed. China is an ancient plurinational state; India similarly so. The United States with the power and necessities it has, with Canada just behind it and Mexico, that morsel just an arm’s reach away, are practically already converted into a block. Europe, in spite of all the problems taking place, continues ahead with its goal of constituting a gigantic block. And if it falls apart tomorrow it will just be swallowed up by a superior block.
And what then are we doing in this world, a handful of isolated republics that are trying to catch up? We stay stuck in “the national projects”. In the key countries of the Latin American region, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the leaders talk of and assume an integrationist discourse, but from a practical point of view, they are up to their ears in the contradictions of the nation-state. On a diplomatic level, towards the other countries of the region, they conduct themselves as their own internal tensions dictate… We are far from reaching constructive policies. We reached an agreement on tariffs for business, all right?... but as far as any internal contradictions go, well! they just put a lid on it… A few days ago I attended a ceremony of the Brazilian Workers’ Party, where who else but the President Dilma Roussef along with Lula were there… I listened carefully to their speeches, and at no point did they mention integration. And it’s not out of bad intentions; they’re excellent people. Any time we have a problem with Brazil, we talk and negotiate and we find a solution, but the internal political concerns and problems of Brazil determine their agenda… So you see, what are we doing? We create these organisms, new institutions, Mercosur, UNASUR…
The integrationist project is two hundred years old, since San Martin, Bolívar, Artigas, but the leftist parties have been so inept to the point that it’s not a popular idea; nowhere in Latin America will you find a mass demonstration demanding integration… it only recently has achieved a veneer of intellectual support, but it’s not yet accepted as a basic historical necessity.
Do you know who are the most pro-integration? The smaller countries; out of necessity… because we are running from behind. Integration requires leadership, and that leader’s name is Brazil… but Argentina would have to come along, and they are not at all, in reality it’s just the opposite, it’s as if Argentina had turned back to a 1960’s vision.
CG: When the winds are blowing their way, Argentina forgets about integration, when things are going well for them they look the other way…
JM: Brazil does too… I’ll confess something to you: the President of Brazil once said to me: “Ay, Pepe, with Argentina you have to have strategic patience…!”.
Brazil has put up with everything from the Argentines, everything… But they don’t want to lose them as an ally. Argentina ends up being decisive in everything… what Argentina does or does not do will influence the direction Brazil takes.
CG: Dilma said this? Or Lula?
JM: Dilma. Lula thinks the same way… And they come looking for me so that I can take the lead with this struggle towards integration. Lula says: I can’t Pepe, I can’t because I’m Brazilian (…) there’s a strong Sao Paolo merchant class, and without political guidance, instead of integrating they colonize. They invest in Uruguay and buy something that we were making instead of starting something new. Now we have 40% of the meat packing sector in Brazilian hands. They go to Argentina and do the same thing. This behavior, the only thing it does is dis-integrate us…
CG: The Argentines do a little bit of the same when they can…
JM: That’s true, because that’s natural under capitalist greed. But politically speaking… I’m not going to expect the bourgeoisie to become socialists…
CG: But at least they should be good bourgeoisie…
JM: Of course!... That’s the most serious of all the problems… our bourgeoisie our very backwards, they are capitalists bourgeoisie but they have a pre-capitalist mentality; in any case a dependent one.
CG: Let’s get back to Uruguay. Among things still needing to improve, the BF has stated that education is essential…
JM: I’m not a specialist in education, I’m an observer. We Uruguayans still have an old dilemma: which should be the priority, an integrated humanistic education, or one of a more technological, scientific nature? That’s the debate that drags on to this day, and it’s common throughout Latin America, after all we are descendants of Spain, not England… The fact is that we prioritized the humanistic oriented education and that produced a particular culture. If a family decided to send their sons to the industrial school, we interpreted that as something second class. We have an educational tradition that did not emphasize mathematics, physics, chemistry, the different fields of engineering that are related to material production in society. We are prolific poets, writers and journalists, a very important intellectual quality, but we abandoned the work-related specializations…
CG: Those related to scientific education and research…JM: Yes… we fell into a kind of fantasy; believing that the path of mathematics or physics would not lead on to philosophy, putting at odds things that really shouldn’t be.
CG: In fact it’s just the opposite…
JM: Right! The classical mathematicians were all philosophers, weren’t they?
CG: Starting with Pythagoras.
JM: Yes… but the people of Uruguay have been giving us a hint: many wait days in line to be able to sign a boy up for an industrial education. The registration rate increased by almost 40%, but we didn’t assign enough resources to satisfy the demand; so we’re in an in-between situation.
______________________________________________________________________

“You can’t have education without political guidance, without political orientation. If we believe that through mass education society will spontaneously come to bloom, we’re dreaming...”

_____________________________________________________________________________
CG: More like a transition, correct?
JM: With some combat in the realm of ideas, because I didn’t have the support of the political forces… As my consolation prize they conceded to a new technological university for the interior…
CG: When you say “they conceded”, are you referring to Congress, to the parliament?
JM: No, in the prior negotiations… I ended up with my own political allies divided on the issue. I’m going to remind them of that till the final judgment day. Now when it’s time to debate the budget, I’m going to fight for them to approve an independent budget for the Labor University of Uruguay (UTU); if you give it money independence will come along on its own. Education is fundamental, but it’s not isolated from the other basics, because if I educate and train, but don’t develop the country, the only thing I’m accomplishing is getting people prepared so that they can leave; in other words, I end up with the bill. You can’t have education without political guidance, without political orientation. If we believe that through mass education society will spontaneously come to bloom, we’re dreaming, bluffing, avoiding the drama of the class struggle. That’s the problem.
CG: One must develop the material infrastructure of the country, the economy…
JM: Exactly… we can’t fixate on education as a panacea, because Latin America has been a factory for educated brains that went off to who knows where…
CG: In Argentina some 50,000 first rate scientists and technicians left the country in recent decades.
JM: The problem is economic. If I train them and then don’t provide any opportunity; if I pay them a quarter of what they can make out in the world, they’re going to leave!
CG: What other things would you say you haven’t gotten done during your government, or things you could have done better?
JM: I believe we are behind in infrastructure. The country’s economy grew quite a bit, the production, but not the infrastructure. We have clogged up ports, poor communication methods, lack of transportation, we don’t take advantage of the rivers… It’s criminal; there’s ample area to work on… We have progressed well with energy, a problem now solved for several years, but the battle for infrastructure still needs to be fought…
CG: Any other faults of the BF governments?
JM: We didn’t make serious attempts to realize the transformations that the State needs. But there’s lots of resistance… the State needs to see some changes in Uruguay, it is imperative. Because we cannot expect that Uruguay, a small underdeveloped country, should have a foundational, creative bourgeoisie class. The State has to be opening up the channels… because otherwise we’ll end up in the hands of the multinationals. The only thing with sufficient stature to substitute the presence of those multinationals is the State, but it can’t be this current State…
CG: And what about an agrarian reform? Would you consider it necessary, possible…?
JM: In the ‘40’s, after a historic debate Uruguay approved a law that was more than an agrarian reform: it was a national plan. We founded something called the National Institute for Colonization…
CG: Colonization?…
JM: Yes… it is the largest proprietary landholder in Uruguay. The largest estate holder in the country is the State… with nearly a half-million hectares, and good ones. But for a long time, it was not given economic resources. As an old politician said, “we voted for the law but we didn’t give them the resources”. If during the ‘60’s or the ‘70’s we had applied in full the content of that law, Uruguay would probably look more like New Zealand today than what we are…
We saved the life of the Institute for Colonization. When we took over the government it was dying, the income it collected barely covered the costs of the bureaucracy. We gave it resources, tried to give it a push, get it up to date. There are sectors of production that to this day still fit in the small, family-business structure; for example dairy, milk production. But we can’t apply the same criteria to the policies for grain producers, because the world and technology has changed. I think we need to continue with the policies of colonization by the State, in favor of those sectors of production that are economically viable, but we can’t transform the land into a system that produces poverty. With the large business we have to nail them down and require them to comply with the modern legislation, to pay decent salaries, to comply with the social security programs and contribute to getting people out of poverty… I don’t worry if there are gringo landowners, because they can’t take the land with them. And truth be told, there are some criollos that are worse than gringos… What does concern me is what they pay and how they treat the people, and what is the added-value that remains in the country. We have to be careful and not cut off our nose to spite our face, something that, by our very nature leftists can be prone to…
We have the tools, we don’t have to do anything: that necessary and possible agrarian reform in Uruguay has a name, it’s the National Institute for Colonization, which instead of having a half-million hectares, should eventually have a million and a half, up to two million… The day that we have the capacity to advance more, maybe other options can be debated, but I reject the idea that agricultural policy should generate more poverty.
CG: Actual socialism had us fooled on that…
JM: I used to not think so, but the failures of the socialist model have taught me a few things, because it doesn’t make sense that the Cuban Revolution after all these years still has trouble providing milk for kids… they have to rely on imports. Why did it fail? What exactly failed? It tried to create gigantic collectivized units and ended up with one hell of a bureaucracy… In Venezuela they ended up nationalizing 40 and 50 thousand hectare estates, that today are desolate, just a wasteland; they don’t produce a thing, you know?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“The Switzerland of America”

Now at the end of two consecutive Broad Front (BF) governments - Tabaré Vázquez 2004/09; José Mujica 2009/15- and with a third government approaching, as Vázquez once again takes the Presidency, the economic, political and social progress in Uruguay is apparent, and not just to Latin America.

The public debt dropped from 70 to 23% of GDP (more than half, about 65%, is denominated in the national currency); the Central Bank reserves reached 40% of GDP, the highest levels of the region (the next government will consequently have on hand 4 billion dollars available for infrastructure projects); unemployment dropped from 20% to 6%; poverty, from 40 to 10% and extreme poverty from 5 to 0.5%. All these figures, and many more, are documented in a report by Federico Fasano Mertens: “Neoliberalism or Democracy: two paths up for vote” (“Brecha”, Montevideo, 27-11-14. Widely shared on social media).

As far as the political approach of the BF is concerned, already Tabaré Vázquez has offered the entire opposition 25 high positions in the administration, which they have accepted. José Mujica made similar gestures.

Uruguay is the South American country with the highest rate of literacy, according to the UN. The second highest in the region, after Chile, with the lowest perceived level of corruption; the third, after Argentina and Chile, with the highest human development level. The first, along with Costa Rica, in equitable distribution of income: both the richest and poorest sectors of the population amount to just 10%, respectively. “Latinobarómetro”, a study carried out in 2008, qualified it as the most peaceful Latin American country. It’s also one of the 10 greenest in the world (Reader’s Digest); one of the top 20 most democratic (The Economist) and one of the safest and best places to live (International Living).

But Uruguay has a particularly unique civic and institutional history. It was, after all, known since the beginning of the previous century as “The Switzerland of America”. The first constitution, in 1830; secular, free and mandatory universal education in 1877; legalized divorce in 1917; separation of Church and State, in 1918; women’s suffrage in 1938, a first in Latin America.

During the interview, José Mujica argued that “Social-democracy was born in Uruguay, but since we’re just a small country, a tiny little place, it doesn’t matter. From 1910 on, we experienced transformations that were frankly speaking social-democratic. A strong democratic state, decisive, foundational, that was moving forward, solving problems.

“We had to defend it when the neoliberal onslaught began … that notion of paying your debts with things, like publically owned companies you now? And so, luckily thanks to some of the mechanisms that were kept, it was defended through referendums. It wasn’t possible to do here what was done in Argentina, for example. The Argentines sold everything to pay off debts and in the end were left without anything and still had some unpaid bills…”

CG: Marihuana was legalized during your government.
JM: That’s something we want to have under control. It’s not some hippy liberalism. Nothing to do with the idea of “free marihuana” and all that. We don’t defend the idea of marihuana as a panacea that’s good for the health. It’s really a measure taken against drug trafficking, because one thing that’s worse than marihuana and any other drug is the drug trafficking. So it’s a policy intended to take away that market from the drug traffickers. Make it a legal business, because otherwise you have to use repression…
If you have one hundred and fifty thousand people that decide to smoke, we need to have them identified, give them access to a good product, and when we see that the person has symptoms indicating that he’s gone overboard, say to him “son, you need to get some treatment”… just like an alcoholic. If we leave this world in the shadows, when the problems finally manifest it’s often too late, or very expensive…
CG: And on top of that you have to charge a tax. I mean, on the drug trade. The drug traffickers don’t pay taxes… the State has to deal with the addicts but doesn’t receive anything…
JM: Yes, and in the case of marihuana, we’ve demonized a plant that at heart is marvelous. As a source of textile fiber, the uses are infinite, to make fabrics and so many things… And since it’s illegal, we can’t move ahead with any scientific studies regarding the possible applications that it could have in healthcare.
CG: Will Tabaré Vázquez carry on with this policy? He seems somewhat hesitant, just as with the abortion issue…
JM:As far as these policies go, it seems that he at least puts up with them… (laughter).
___________________________________________________________________________

“It’s not some hippy liberalism. … It’s really a measure taken against drug trafficking, because one thing that’s worse than marihuana and any other drug is the drug trafficking.”

_____________________________________________________________________________CG: Before we end, let’s talk a bit about your past, your life, your history?
JM: I don’t really have a history, more like a comedy… (laughter) My past? There must be 20 books written on that; the journalists hunt for the story at my expense (laughter)… don’t read all of them please, they’re unbearable…
CG: Maybe as you say your life is more of a comedy, but a passionate one. Just imagining it: an armed militant, 15 years in prison, some of them in a hole, a well, so… What did you do, what strategy did you come up with to survive and end up here today, President of Uruguay? Most people in that situation would either die, go crazy, or be broken…
JM: I don’t know if it has anything to do with genetics, but I never doubted that I would eventually get out and continue fighting. It never crossed my mind that I would die or drop the political struggle… It’s an ideal I’ve always held, and perhaps it has helped me… I spent six years without books, so I invented things for myself, tricks to keep my spirits up…
CG: Like what?
JM: I would come up with ideas for tools, I mentally invented farm implements, that would be for this or that, I calculated them, manufactured them mentally and so kept myself entertained… I walked several miles a day. More than I do today, for sure…
CG: In the hole?
JM: Oh yes, three steps one way, three steps the other; three steps one way, three steps to the other… until my legs hurt…
CG: And you never once doubted that you’d get out alive?
JM: I don’t think about death. Death has flirted with me several times; it’s given me a few close calls, but never really wanted me. That’s probably the most ingrained part of my way of thinking; I love life, I would never take my own life… for me life is a beautiful thing. I don’t live out in the country because I’m strange, rather it’s because I love nature…
Yesterday I hurt myself with some pliers right here (he points to a scab on the tip of his nose) twisting some wire (laughter). I’m President of the Republic, sure, but I was running around on the tractor breaking ground over there, came home a total mess, took a bath, cleaned up my nose and straightened myself out a bit…
I know those are small details for most people, but for me they’re essential; I can’t live any other way… Other people have their own ways; fine, that’s the beauty of human freedom, everybody needs to have the time, at least some time set aside to do things they feel motivated to do. That’s true liberty; it’s such a grandiose word, so French, it has to be brought down to earth…
CG: You often mention happiness in your speeches.
JM: Some people say that I’m a “poor” President, but in reality I just have a simple lifestyle. I get by with little, keep my bags light on purpose, it’s a choice. Why? To have the free time and be able to spend it on the things that truly motivate me. If I spend all my effort making money, then I’ll have to constantly run around anxiously looking after it; worrying if someone’s going to steal from me here or screw me over later and so on, and all the while I’m taking time out of my life –time that you can’t buy – on things that don’t motivate me. For some maybe that is a motivation; there again, that’s freedom for them, there has to be a margin of free choice… I’m not arguing for a State or a society where everything is regulated either: you wear a coat and tie if you want, or wear… just whatever you like! Do as you wish, as long as you don’t offend anyone… Maybe I’m part anarchist after all…
CG: What’s your dream, what project’s left for you to accomplish?
JM: As long as we’re alive our dreams never end… I have socialist convictions, and I aspire to contribute towards an intelligent legacy, with the kind of leaders that when they die, or at the end of their government, the people and society are better off than they are… Because things drag out over time and a human life is short when compared to the infinite tasks of the future, to create more just societies…Those just societies don’t result from spontaneous generation; they require organized human willpower. To me that’s what is indispensable; it’s not the only thing, but without organized human willpower, things won’t get done, and then there’s that determinism …
CG: Like the quote from Gramsci, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”.
JM: Correct… the creation of a public culture that facilitates change is a formidable task. It’s the only thing that can sustain revolutionary changes, in the deepest sense…
CG: You say you don’t hate, but when you got out of prison, out of the hole, you didn’t hate then?
JM: No, I don’t hate. Honestly if one has an understanding of the class struggle in society, one knows that the dirty work that one person does, even if they refused to do it someone else would, because it’s a byproduct of the circumstances. Of course, there is that greater or lesser degree of sadistic behavior each individual contributes. But I also came to know interesting characters while in prison… soldiers that risked their neck to bring us a bowl of rations or an apple. I saw officers that disagreed with the orders they received… There’s no black and white; there are always shades of gray in between. But obviously, if I’m a political or social militant, I have to fight to gain power, to be able to implement structural changes.
Today, the Left seems to believe that they should abandon or substitute the struggle for power for a social agenda: marriage equality, abortion, minority rights, the indigenous, feminism… All that is very good, and I support it, but the person of color who is really damned is the poor one; the woman who’s the greatest victim of discrimination is the poor woman, overwhelmed, with too many children living day to day; with the indigenous, it’s the same. Don’t try to camouflage or hide class differences with me.
CG: Yes, but then there are personal questions too, emotionally speaking, when one walks away from a place where they were truly mistreated, how is that to change?
JM: I went to visit the guards at the jail where I was imprisoned… I took a picture with coronels there now and everything… (laughter). The past is water under the bridge. Yes, it can seem painful, but life…life is incredible; you don’t have to live constantly thinking back on what you went through, licking your wounds, limping around, because if you’re just whining about what happened to you, you’re stuck in the past. And life is what’s yet to come, life is tomorrow; we have to learn from the past, but not let it bury us.
CG: Last year you were nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.
JM:And I told them they were crazy, because it seemed like wars were popping up all over the place, it was a real disaster what was happening, and then you decide to nominate me for a peace prize! Don’t they have any sense? (laughter)… What peace are we talking about? I suggested they should award it posthumously to Gandhi. It would make more sense…
CG: So what’s next for you? What do you plan to do after March 1st, after you leave government?
JM: I think now I’ve got one foot in the grave (laughter)…CG: Good thing you loved life so much then…
JM: I’m going to take it as slow as I can (laughter). I see death as a very basic part of life… You have to learn to die like the mountain wolf, without causing such a fuss (sic). It’s just a means of going back to the source; it should be accepted as natural… but in the meantime, as long as I can move my bones, old though they may be, I’ll continue to struggle. I can’t imagine retiring… I would surely die then, but out of sadness over in a corner.
Carlos Gabeta is a journalist and writer. He collaborates with the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org. A version of this interview appeared in the La Jornada newspaper. It’s republished here with the author’s permission. ]]>Author’s note: President “Pepe”. When used like that, it sounds like an electoral slogan. But Jose Mujica is about to conclude – on Mar. 1 – his term as President and he’s more “Pepe” than ever. In more than half a century as a journalist, I have had the opportunity to meet or mingle with all manner of leaders, from Ronald Reagan to Raul Alfonsín, to Fidel Castro, Mijail Gorbachov, “Lula”, François Mitterand, Sandro Pertini, Michèle Bachelet and Carlos Menem, but “Pepe” breaks the mold. On Feb. 11, at 10:00 in the morning, the Swiss journalist Camilla Landbö, photographer Oscar Bonilla, coordinator Fasano Mertens, presidential press secretary of Uruguay Joaquín Costanzo and myself arrived at “Pepe’s” very simple, blooming farm just a few miles outside of Montevideo. Out comes the President to greet us wearing his untucked button-down with sleeves rolled up over a pair of jeans, shoes half untied and a baseball cap. He says hello, exchanges handshakes, and we sit down under a tree where he grabs a thermos and begins to serve “mates” for the whole crew. Every now and then he interrupts to ask Bonilla for some tobacco and paper to roll up a smoke. But in spite of what this description might suggest, there was not a bit of posing, or anything picturesque about “Pepe” Mujica. Breathing, sweating, he exudes an authenticity demonstrated in all aspects of his life and, of course, by his deeds and words. He freely expresses the limitations and problems of his administration in an intellectual style with an everyman touch. “Pepe” is one of those rare Marxists that gets the humanist materialism of Marx and attempts to make it relevant to today’s world. A cultured and profoundly honest and sincere man, whether you agree or disagree with what he says. “Pepe”, President of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. C.G.Interview with José Mujica, President of UruguayCG (Carlos Gabetta): Let’s start with the formalities: what’s the proper way to address you? Should we call you President, Mr. Mujica, José, or…
JM(José Mujica): Pepe… and we’ll use “tu” (an informal conversation style - tn).
CG: Thanks, Pepe. Let’s get started then. For a man such as yourself, who struggled through the ‘70’s for urgent and definitive political, economic and social change; for a revolution, which cost you among other things 15 years in jail…. What does it mean, now years later after these experiences, to be elected President, to find yourself at the head of a center-left coalition, with partners that have different ideas, and with this responsibility to govern?
JM: Humans, just like any other living creature, we love life very much. So we wanted a perfect world. In the end we suffered quite bit, but mainly because we weren’t quick enough, and they caught us (laughing), not because we were heroes. But that’s where we started to reevaluate the meaning of life, nothing more and nothing less… It’s worth fighting for people to have a bit more food, a better roof over their heads, better health, better education, and to be able to spend their days on this earth the best they can. So nothing is more beautiful, more precious than life… And that’s true under capitalism, it was so under feudalism, and it was also true for primitive man… and it will continue to be so under socialism. There’s nothing like life…That’s what we learned in those years, that life itself is the main value, and in any case the second value is society.
That’s why now we go more slowly, but firmly, trying to fortify the transformations that are relevant; slowly, because they need to be consensual; and not so definitive, because death is really the only thing definitive…
CG: What you say could be understood, to translate, as adapting to reality…
JM: One never ceases to adapt to reality, it’s so complex… It’s a way of looking at the world… some see it through a religious equation, others strictly ideologically… I myself feel more and more closer to the old philosophers like Seneca, or Epicurus, or like….
CG: Heraclitus….
JM: Yes… Of course, there are convictions, an intellectual trajectory that one won’t abandon, but we shouldn’t be so schematic… I think that man, being the animal that he is, with the kind of hard-drive that we have inside, is essentially sociable; he’s not feline, but anthropologically socialist. In what way? Man needs a community to live in; he can’t live in isolation, there’s a deep dependence on the social group. 90% of our human existence was lived in a primitive state; there was no distinction between what’s mine and yours. Property, competition and all that came later. The development of civilization brought about individuality; the later idea of the selfish individual is modern, capitalist. We are capitalists as a result of historical formation, because we are living at this point of civilizational development.
_____________________________________________________________________________

“It’s worth fighting for people to have a bit more food, a better roof over their heads, better health, better education, and be able to spend their days on this earth the best they can.”

____________________________________________________________________________CG: A few days ago I read a statement of yours: “we will be at war until Nature demands that we become civilized”…
JM: Yes, that’s how we’re headed. Capitalism, like everything, is contradictory. On the one hand, you have the injustice, the inequality, the wars; but that selfishness we have inside is a powerful motor, that has led to the development of science, technology, and all that right? Capitalism has given us many a scourge, but it gave us 40 more years of average lifespan in the last century… what do you make of it? Now it seems that it’s given all it has to give; the logical step would be for democratic socialism to replace it, but historical timeframes are long. Capitalism developed during three centuries without any political democracy…
CG: At any point did you say something like “no use crying over your problems; you have to face them”..
JM: Yes, the trick is finding the way…
CG: Precisely, and now in a government such as the one you head, how are these contradictions resolved?
JM: They get negotiated as best they can, trying to contribute towards making society as equitable as possible, constantly intervening with fiscal and social policies, encouraging workers to organize so that they can negotiate the cost of their own labor. Because at the end of the day, the greatest factor of distribution in society, at least in ours today, is one’s salary. It’s not the only one, and of course it has a limit, because if I put my hand too deep into the pockets of those who need to invest, they don’t invest and I end up with less to redistribute…You see the human and practical result of the hurried, “definitive” experiments of socialism: in the end they had less to divvy up.
CG: And they were also undemocratic experiments…
JM: Of course, because when you run out of everything, you have to fall back on the firmness of repression… But the worst of that socialism is the bureaucracy…Instead of depending on the producers, you begin to rely on the supervisors…. Capitalism has the problems we all know of, but there’s always something to learn, even from the enemy. You have to learn from intelligence, not stupidity.
CG: How far has the Broad Front (Frente Amplio) advanced and what’s left for it to do?
JM: The problem is that we have an inheritance, which is normal. From around the ‘40’s – the dates can be somewhat arbitrary – in Uruguay democracy began to soften; we fell into clientelisms, using the State as a means of employing many people, too many people, and so it began to lose competitiveness.
Due to this “protectionism” towards the people that worked, we created a category of practically untouchable bureaucrats whose livelihood is guaranteed; after starting out in government, within 40 years they retire and nobody touches them, regardless of what they do. The State lost its vigor, and obviously the labor unions defended these “victories”, by which they themselves turned into defenders of the status quo which tied up the State… So addressing that in Uruguay is like starting a revolution… And so, we got about halfway there.
The Broad Front tried to strengthen the victories while being less demagogic, trying to use and do things a bit better, but we have to transform the state, to start this revolution. We have the tools, but we need to come to an agreement: in addition to Energy, Communications, etc., the State has in its hands the primary bank of the country; 60% of banking transactions are in the hands of the State and we (the BF, editor’s note) are still demanding to “nationalize the banks”…
Why would you nationalize the Banks? The state bank has to function under a “zero exceptions” regimen, to the extent that the private banking sector has no other option than to accept the rules of the game. This is one of the challenges that lies ahead.
CG: As in Chile, and contrary to the case with Argentina, in Uruguay the crimes from the dictatorship of the ‘70’s benefitted from an expiration law, approved by referendum…
JM: I think the people of Uruguay were afraid… but with good humor, in a way decided to “swallow the bitter pill”… Very hard and difficult, but it prioritized tranquility.
CG:But then later the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional some parts of that Full stop law, to use that term. How was this issue handled within your government?
JM: The problem is complex. On the one hand, the criminals would never accuse themselves; on the other, they left very few clues, I would say none, that would permit justice to be fully carried out, which would rightfully keep us busy for quite some time. Truth and justice tend to be contradictory and the problem lies in the political divisions and the disputes, grievances, that this generates in society when the situation is prolonged over time. Look at Argentina, they started out well, but then began mucking things up with such a generalized and massive effort where thirty years have passed leaving many loose ends and rough spots along the way… Not in Uruguay… We had violence and dictatorship, but then the people decided to forget it, if you like. We’ll have to see how this gets resolved institutionally with regards to the Supreme Court.
Also, on the subject of justice and not only referring to the crimes from the dictatorship, Uruguay functions under a system appropriate to the past, but not with the changes necessary for the present. In Uruguay today, if you want to impose a tax on land, on concentrated landholdings, they put an end to that by declaring it unconstitutional. As with anywhere in the world and as is typical in history, the system of jurisprudence was conceived and set up by the dominant classes, the conservative caste. We have to deal with this; we have not transformed it. We (the BF, editor’s note) for some time now should have pushed for a constitutional reform, because if you don’t change the instruments of justice, later you will find yourself trapped in these contradictions, by a very formidable wall. Justice, like the lady they show with a blindfold over her eyes and scales in her hands… that doesn’t exist, because the justice system reflects the weight of the classes that dominate the society. The instruments of justice are burdened by history, and that is the history of class struggle… All of this is influenced by politics. I don’t think a more political act exists other than a revolution, and all the revolutions have been foundations of law, sources of jurisprudence. In other words the or those classes that predominate, are those that establish the laws. That’s what we need now, democratic changes - meaning approved by the majority - to the very root, that reflect and at the same time allow for those changes that Uruguay needs at the present time.
CG: Marx would agree with you.
JM: Better yet, I agree with Marx…
CG: I would like to move to a regional topic, Pepe. Mercosur, for example, which was created in 1989 and still has not moved beyond a few commercial and tariff agreements, which at any rate don’t work very well… What do you think about these organizations, of their present status, of what they should become?
JM: In South America, and in all of Latin America, we have a great challenge ahead. If we do not create mechanisms that continue to integrate us, that can provide us with a greater international presence, we will end up like so many leaves blowing in the wind. It’s obvious that in today’s world gigantic blocks are being formed. China is an ancient plurinational state; India similarly so. The United States with the power and necessities it has, with Canada just behind it and Mexico, that morsel just an arm’s reach away, are practically already converted into a block. Europe, in spite of all the problems taking place, continues ahead with its goal of constituting a gigantic block. And if it falls apart tomorrow it will just be swallowed up by a superior block.
And what then are we doing in this world, a handful of isolated republics that are trying to catch up? We stay stuck in “the national projects”. In the key countries of the Latin American region, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the leaders talk of and assume an integrationist discourse, but from a practical point of view, they are up to their ears in the contradictions of the nation-state. On a diplomatic level, towards the other countries of the region, they conduct themselves as their own internal tensions dictate… We are far from reaching constructive policies. We reached an agreement on tariffs for business, all right?... but as far as any internal contradictions go, well! they just put a lid on it… A few days ago I attended a ceremony of the Brazilian Workers’ Party, where who else but the President Dilma Roussef along with Lula were there… I listened carefully to their speeches, and at no point did they mention integration. And it’s not out of bad intentions; they’re excellent people. Any time we have a problem with Brazil, we talk and negotiate and we find a solution, but the internal political concerns and problems of Brazil determine their agenda… So you see, what are we doing? We create these organisms, new institutions, Mercosur, UNASUR…
The integrationist project is two hundred years old, since San Martin, Bolívar, Artigas, but the leftist parties have been so inept to the point that it’s not a popular idea; nowhere in Latin America will you find a mass demonstration demanding integration… it only recently has achieved a veneer of intellectual support, but it’s not yet accepted as a basic historical necessity.
Do you know who are the most pro-integration? The smaller countries; out of necessity… because we are running from behind. Integration requires leadership, and that leader’s name is Brazil… but Argentina would have to come along, and they are not at all, in reality it’s just the opposite, it’s as if Argentina had turned back to a 1960’s vision.
CG: When the winds are blowing their way, Argentina forgets about integration, when things are going well for them they look the other way…
JM: Brazil does too… I’ll confess something to you: the President of Brazil once said to me: “Ay, Pepe, with Argentina you have to have strategic patience…!”.
Brazil has put up with everything from the Argentines, everything… But they don’t want to lose them as an ally. Argentina ends up being decisive in everything… what Argentina does or does not do will influence the direction Brazil takes.
CG: Dilma said this? Or Lula?
JM: Dilma. Lula thinks the same way… And they come looking for me so that I can take the lead with this struggle towards integration. Lula says: I can’t Pepe, I can’t because I’m Brazilian (…) there’s a strong Sao Paolo merchant class, and without political guidance, instead of integrating they colonize. They invest in Uruguay and buy something that we were making instead of starting something new. Now we have 40% of the meat packing sector in Brazilian hands. They go to Argentina and do the same thing. This behavior, the only thing it does is dis-integrate us…
CG: The Argentines do a little bit of the same when they can…
JM: That’s true, because that’s natural under capitalist greed. But politically speaking… I’m not going to expect the bourgeoisie to become socialists…
CG: But at least they should be good bourgeoisie…
JM: Of course!... That’s the most serious of all the problems… our bourgeoisie our very backwards, they are capitalists bourgeoisie but they have a pre-capitalist mentality; in any case a dependent one.
CG: Let’s get back to Uruguay. Among things still needing to improve, the BF has stated that education is essential…
JM: I’m not a specialist in education, I’m an observer. We Uruguayans still have an old dilemma: which should be the priority, an integrated humanistic education, or one of a more technological, scientific nature? That’s the debate that drags on to this day, and it’s common throughout Latin America, after all we are descendants of Spain, not England… The fact is that we prioritized the humanistic oriented education and that produced a particular culture. If a family decided to send their sons to the industrial school, we interpreted that as something second class. We have an educational tradition that did not emphasize mathematics, physics, chemistry, the different fields of engineering that are related to material production in society. We are prolific poets, writers and journalists, a very important intellectual quality, but we abandoned the work-related specializations…
CG: Those related to scientific education and research…JM: Yes… we fell into a kind of fantasy; believing that the path of mathematics or physics would not lead on to philosophy, putting at odds things that really shouldn’t be.
CG: In fact it’s just the opposite…
JM: Right! The classical mathematicians were all philosophers, weren’t they?
CG: Starting with Pythagoras.
JM: Yes… but the people of Uruguay have been giving us a hint: many wait days in line to be able to sign a boy up for an industrial education. The registration rate increased by almost 40%, but we didn’t assign enough resources to satisfy the demand; so we’re in an in-between situation.
______________________________________________________________________

“You can’t have education without political guidance, without political orientation. If we believe that through mass education society will spontaneously come to bloom, we’re dreaming...”

_____________________________________________________________________________
CG: More like a transition, correct?
JM: With some combat in the realm of ideas, because I didn’t have the support of the political forces… As my consolation prize they conceded to a new technological university for the interior…
CG: When you say “they conceded”, are you referring to Congress, to the parliament?
JM: No, in the prior negotiations… I ended up with my own political allies divided on the issue. I’m going to remind them of that till the final judgment day. Now when it’s time to debate the budget, I’m going to fight for them to approve an independent budget for the Labor University of Uruguay (UTU); if you give it money independence will come along on its own. Education is fundamental, but it’s not isolated from the other basics, because if I educate and train, but don’t develop the country, the only thing I’m accomplishing is getting people prepared so that they can leave; in other words, I end up with the bill. You can’t have education without political guidance, without political orientation. If we believe that through mass education society will spontaneously come to bloom, we’re dreaming, bluffing, avoiding the drama of the class struggle. That’s the problem.
CG: One must develop the material infrastructure of the country, the economy…
JM: Exactly… we can’t fixate on education as a panacea, because Latin America has been a factory for educated brains that went off to who knows where…
CG: In Argentina some 50,000 first rate scientists and technicians left the country in recent decades.
JM: The problem is economic. If I train them and then don’t provide any opportunity; if I pay them a quarter of what they can make out in the world, they’re going to leave!
CG: What other things would you say you haven’t gotten done during your government, or things you could have done better?
JM: I believe we are behind in infrastructure. The country’s economy grew quite a bit, the production, but not the infrastructure. We have clogged up ports, poor communication methods, lack of transportation, we don’t take advantage of the rivers… It’s criminal; there’s ample area to work on… We have progressed well with energy, a problem now solved for several years, but the battle for infrastructure still needs to be fought…
CG: Any other faults of the BF governments?
JM: We didn’t make serious attempts to realize the transformations that the State needs. But there’s lots of resistance… the State needs to see some changes in Uruguay, it is imperative. Because we cannot expect that Uruguay, a small underdeveloped country, should have a foundational, creative bourgeoisie class. The State has to be opening up the channels… because otherwise we’ll end up in the hands of the multinationals. The only thing with sufficient stature to substitute the presence of those multinationals is the State, but it can’t be this current State…
CG: And what about an agrarian reform? Would you consider it necessary, possible…?
JM: In the ‘40’s, after a historic debate Uruguay approved a law that was more than an agrarian reform: it was a national plan. We founded something called the National Institute for Colonization…
CG: Colonization?…
JM: Yes… it is the largest proprietary landholder in Uruguay. The largest estate holder in the country is the State… with nearly a half-million hectares, and good ones. But for a long time, it was not given economic resources. As an old politician said, “we voted for the law but we didn’t give them the resources”. If during the ‘60’s or the ‘70’s we had applied in full the content of that law, Uruguay would probably look more like New Zealand today than what we are…
We saved the life of the Institute for Colonization. When we took over the government it was dying, the income it collected barely covered the costs of the bureaucracy. We gave it resources, tried to give it a push, get it up to date. There are sectors of production that to this day still fit in the small, family-business structure; for example dairy, milk production. But we can’t apply the same criteria to the policies for grain producers, because the world and technology has changed. I think we need to continue with the policies of colonization by the State, in favor of those sectors of production that are economically viable, but we can’t transform the land into a system that produces poverty. With the large business we have to nail them down and require them to comply with the modern legislation, to pay decent salaries, to comply with the social security programs and contribute to getting people out of poverty… I don’t worry if there are gringo landowners, because they can’t take the land with them. And truth be told, there are some criollos that are worse than gringos… What does concern me is what they pay and how they treat the people, and what is the added-value that remains in the country. We have to be careful and not cut off our nose to spite our face, something that, by our very nature leftists can be prone to…
We have the tools, we don’t have to do anything: that necessary and possible agrarian reform in Uruguay has a name, it’s the National Institute for Colonization, which instead of having a half-million hectares, should eventually have a million and a half, up to two million… The day that we have the capacity to advance more, maybe other options can be debated, but I reject the idea that agricultural policy should generate more poverty.
CG: Actual socialism had us fooled on that…
JM: I used to not think so, but the failures of the socialist model have taught me a few things, because it doesn’t make sense that the Cuban Revolution after all these years still has trouble providing milk for kids… they have to rely on imports. Why did it fail? What exactly failed? It tried to create gigantic collectivized units and ended up with one hell of a bureaucracy… In Venezuela they ended up nationalizing 40 and 50 thousand hectare estates, that today are desolate, just a wasteland; they don’t produce a thing, you know?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“The Switzerland of America”

Now at the end of two consecutive Broad Front (BF) governments - Tabaré Vázquez 2004/09; José Mujica 2009/15- and with a third government approaching, as Vázquez once again takes the Presidency, the economic, political and social progress in Uruguay is apparent, and not just to Latin America.

The public debt dropped from 70 to 23% of GDP (more than half, about 65%, is denominated in the national currency); the Central Bank reserves reached 40% of GDP, the highest levels of the region (the next government will consequently have on hand 4 billion dollars available for infrastructure projects); unemployment dropped from 20% to 6%; poverty, from 40 to 10% and extreme poverty from 5 to 0.5%. All these figures, and many more, are documented in a report by Federico Fasano Mertens: “Neoliberalism or Democracy: two paths up for vote” (“Brecha”, Montevideo, 27-11-14. Widely shared on social media).

As far as the political approach of the BF is concerned, already Tabaré Vázquez has offered the entire opposition 25 high positions in the administration, which they have accepted. José Mujica made similar gestures.

Uruguay is the South American country with the highest rate of literacy, according to the UN. The second highest in the region, after Chile, with the lowest perceived level of corruption; the third, after Argentina and Chile, with the highest human development level. The first, along with Costa Rica, in equitable distribution of income: both the richest and poorest sectors of the population amount to just 10%, respectively. “Latinobarómetro”, a study carried out in 2008, qualified it as the most peaceful Latin American country. It’s also one of the 10 greenest in the world (Reader’s Digest); one of the top 20 most democratic (The Economist) and one of the safest and best places to live (International Living).

But Uruguay has a particularly unique civic and institutional history. It was, after all, known since the beginning of the previous century as “The Switzerland of America”. The first constitution, in 1830; secular, free and mandatory universal education in 1877; legalized divorce in 1917; separation of Church and State, in 1918; women’s suffrage in 1938, a first in Latin America.

During the interview, José Mujica argued that “Social-democracy was born in Uruguay, but since we’re just a small country, a tiny little place, it doesn’t matter. From 1910 on, we experienced transformations that were frankly speaking social-democratic. A strong democratic state, decisive, foundational, that was moving forward, solving problems.

“We had to defend it when the neoliberal onslaught began … that notion of paying your debts with things, like publically owned companies you now? And so, luckily thanks to some of the mechanisms that were kept, it was defended through referendums. It wasn’t possible to do here what was done in Argentina, for example. The Argentines sold everything to pay off debts and in the end were left without anything and still had some unpaid bills…”

CG: Marihuana was legalized during your government.
JM: That’s something we want to have under control. It’s not some hippy liberalism. Nothing to do with the idea of “free marihuana” and all that. We don’t defend the idea of marihuana as a panacea that’s good for the health. It’s really a measure taken against drug trafficking, because one thing that’s worse than marihuana and any other drug is the drug trafficking. So it’s a policy intended to take away that market from the drug traffickers. Make it a legal business, because otherwise you have to use repression…
If you have one hundred and fifty thousand people that decide to smoke, we need to have them identified, give them access to a good product, and when we see that the person has symptoms indicating that he’s gone overboard, say to him “son, you need to get some treatment”… just like an alcoholic. If we leave this world in the shadows, when the problems finally manifest it’s often too late, or very expensive…
CG: And on top of that you have to charge a tax. I mean, on the drug trade. The drug traffickers don’t pay taxes… the State has to deal with the addicts but doesn’t receive anything…
JM: Yes, and in the case of marihuana, we’ve demonized a plant that at heart is marvelous. As a source of textile fiber, the uses are infinite, to make fabrics and so many things… And since it’s illegal, we can’t move ahead with any scientific studies regarding the possible applications that it could have in healthcare.
CG: Will Tabaré Vázquez carry on with this policy? He seems somewhat hesitant, just as with the abortion issue…
JM:As far as these policies go, it seems that he at least puts up with them… (laughter).
___________________________________________________________________________

“It’s not some hippy liberalism. … It’s really a measure taken against drug trafficking, because one thing that’s worse than marihuana and any other drug is the drug trafficking.”

_____________________________________________________________________________CG: Before we end, let’s talk a bit about your past, your life, your history?
JM: I don’t really have a history, more like a comedy… (laughter) My past? There must be 20 books written on that; the journalists hunt for the story at my expense (laughter)… don’t read all of them please, they’re unbearable…
CG: Maybe as you say your life is more of a comedy, but a passionate one. Just imagining it: an armed militant, 15 years in prison, some of them in a hole, a well, so… What did you do, what strategy did you come up with to survive and end up here today, President of Uruguay? Most people in that situation would either die, go crazy, or be broken…
JM: I don’t know if it has anything to do with genetics, but I never doubted that I would eventually get out and continue fighting. It never crossed my mind that I would die or drop the political struggle… It’s an ideal I’ve always held, and perhaps it has helped me… I spent six years without books, so I invented things for myself, tricks to keep my spirits up…
CG: Like what?
JM: I would come up with ideas for tools, I mentally invented farm implements, that would be for this or that, I calculated them, manufactured them mentally and so kept myself entertained… I walked several miles a day. More than I do today, for sure…
CG: In the hole?
JM: Oh yes, three steps one way, three steps the other; three steps one way, three steps to the other… until my legs hurt…
CG: And you never once doubted that you’d get out alive?
JM: I don’t think about death. Death has flirted with me several times; it’s given me a few close calls, but never really wanted me. That’s probably the most ingrained part of my way of thinking; I love life, I would never take my own life… for me life is a beautiful thing. I don’t live out in the country because I’m strange, rather it’s because I love nature…
Yesterday I hurt myself with some pliers right here (he points to a scab on the tip of his nose) twisting some wire (laughter). I’m President of the Republic, sure, but I was running around on the tractor breaking ground over there, came home a total mess, took a bath, cleaned up my nose and straightened myself out a bit…
I know those are small details for most people, but for me they’re essential; I can’t live any other way… Other people have their own ways; fine, that’s the beauty of human freedom, everybody needs to have the time, at least some time set aside to do things they feel motivated to do. That’s true liberty; it’s such a grandiose word, so French, it has to be brought down to earth…
CG: You often mention happiness in your speeches.
JM: Some people say that I’m a “poor” President, but in reality I just have a simple lifestyle. I get by with little, keep my bags light on purpose, it’s a choice. Why? To have the free time and be able to spend it on the things that truly motivate me. If I spend all my effort making money, then I’ll have to constantly run around anxiously looking after it; worrying if someone’s going to steal from me here or screw me over later and so on, and all the while I’m taking time out of my life –time that you can’t buy – on things that don’t motivate me. For some maybe that is a motivation; there again, that’s freedom for them, there has to be a margin of free choice… I’m not arguing for a State or a society where everything is regulated either: you wear a coat and tie if you want, or wear… just whatever you like! Do as you wish, as long as you don’t offend anyone… Maybe I’m part anarchist after all…
CG: What’s your dream, what project’s left for you to accomplish?
JM: As long as we’re alive our dreams never end… I have socialist convictions, and I aspire to contribute towards an intelligent legacy, with the kind of leaders that when they die, or at the end of their government, the people and society are better off than they are… Because things drag out over time and a human life is short when compared to the infinite tasks of the future, to create more just societies…Those just societies don’t result from spontaneous generation; they require organized human willpower. To me that’s what is indispensable; it’s not the only thing, but without organized human willpower, things won’t get done, and then there’s that determinism …
CG: Like the quote from Gramsci, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will”.
JM: Correct… the creation of a public culture that facilitates change is a formidable task. It’s the only thing that can sustain revolutionary changes, in the deepest sense…
CG: You say you don’t hate, but when you got out of prison, out of the hole, you didn’t hate then?
JM: No, I don’t hate. Honestly if one has an understanding of the class struggle in society, one knows that the dirty work that one person does, even if they refused to do it someone else would, because it’s a byproduct of the circumstances. Of course, there is that greater or lesser degree of sadistic behavior each individual contributes. But I also came to know interesting characters while in prison… soldiers that risked their neck to bring us a bowl of rations or an apple. I saw officers that disagreed with the orders they received… There’s no black and white; there are always shades of gray in between. But obviously, if I’m a political or social militant, I have to fight to gain power, to be able to implement structural changes.
Today, the Left seems to believe that they should abandon or substitute the struggle for power for a social agenda: marriage equality, abortion, minority rights, the indigenous, feminism… All that is very good, and I support it, but the person of color who is really damned is the poor one; the woman who’s the greatest victim of discrimination is the poor woman, overwhelmed, with too many children living day to day; with the indigenous, it’s the same. Don’t try to camouflage or hide class differences with me.
CG: Yes, but then there are personal questions too, emotionally speaking, when one walks away from a place where they were truly mistreated, how is that to change?
JM: I went to visit the guards at the jail where I was imprisoned… I took a picture with coronels there now and everything… (laughter). The past is water under the bridge. Yes, it can seem painful, but life…life is incredible; you don’t have to live constantly thinking back on what you went through, licking your wounds, limping around, because if you’re just whining about what happened to you, you’re stuck in the past. And life is what’s yet to come, life is tomorrow; we have to learn from the past, but not let it bury us.
CG: Last year you were nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.
JM:And I told them they were crazy, because it seemed like wars were popping up all over the place, it was a real disaster what was happening, and then you decide to nominate me for a peace prize! Don’t they have any sense? (laughter)… What peace are we talking about? I suggested they should award it posthumously to Gandhi. It would make more sense…
CG: So what’s next for you? What do you plan to do after March 1st, after you leave government?
JM: I think now I’ve got one foot in the grave (laughter)…CG: Good thing you loved life so much then…
JM: I’m going to take it as slow as I can (laughter). I see death as a very basic part of life… You have to learn to die like the mountain wolf, without causing such a fuss (sic). It’s just a means of going back to the source; it should be accepted as natural… but in the meantime, as long as I can move my bones, old though they may be, I’ll continue to struggle. I can’t imagine retiring… I would surely die then, but out of sadness over in a corner.
Carlos Gabeta is a journalist and writer. He collaborates with the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org. A version of this interview appeared in the La Jornada newspaper. It’s republished here with the author’s permission. ]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14708/feed1China Stakes Its Claim in Latin Americahttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14692
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14692#commentsFri, 13 Mar 2015 16:10:54 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14692"The United States is no longer our privileged partner. Now the privileged partner is China," Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño stated at the close of the third summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Costa Rica on January 29.
"China is willing to work with Latin American and Caribbean states in the long term and with a strategic outlook, in order to build a new platform for collective cooperation between both sides," President Xi Jinping stressed at the opening of the first China-CELAC forum in Beijing on January 8 (Xinhua, January 8, 2015).
The Beijing Declaration, signed by the 33 foreign ministers of CELAC, provides a five-year plan for cooperation and agrees to hold a second meeting in Chile in 2018.
The two meetings were interrelated. The Chinese government announced its intention to double bilateral trade with the region to $500 billion by 2025. Looked at carefully, that's not so much, given that bilateral trade increased 22-fold from 2000 to 2013, making China go "from a minor to central player in foreign trade in the region," as evident in the CEPAL report from the first CELAC-China forum.[1] In a speech at the forum, President Xi declared that China will invest $250 billion in the region in the next decade, which will focus not only on primary resource extraction as before, but also infrastructure (transport, railways, ports and roads), technology projects, and research and development.
CEPAL's executive director Alicia Bárcena stressed that "China can become a great alternative for the region [Latin America and the Caribbean] this year," characterized by a drop in commodity prices and a very modest growth rate expected to be only 2% (Xinghua, January 31, 2015). In Bárcena's opinion, China is changing its model, which enables new and better opportunities for the region: "China was a country of high [foreign] investment and low [domestic] consumption; now it is lowering investment and increasing its consumption. That means that Chinese investment will be looking for where to invest, and Latin America is one of those places."
CEPAL's director of international trade and integration Osvaldo Rosales stressed China's commitment to upholding a relationship "of equality, mutual benefit, and a model of open and inclusive cooperation," which should translate into a central aspect for development in Latin America and the diversification of its exports (Xinhua, January 13, 2015).
In search of raw materials
As recently as four years ago, relations between Latin American counties and China were focused on Asian interest in the purchase of raw materials: oil, hydrocarbons, and minerals. In some cases China overtook large sums to ensure its oil supply, as in the case of Venezuela, turning the axis of exports from the US to the Asian giant.
Between 2005 and 2013, [Venezuela] received $50 billion, mostly in exchange for oil, but also as credits for housing and infrastructure construction (Valor, April 4, 2013). Other sources claim that the oil credits total $40 billion (Econochina.com, January 11, 2015). Oil and mineral negotiations have been similar for Ecuador: fresh money in exchange for commodities, which allows governments without access to international credits cash, to be able to roll out the state machinery. In this case, $8 billion.
According to vice president Jorge Glas, "China lends without IMF conditionality," ensuring the relationship is not conditioned, and more diversified, including support for a refinery in the Pacific and at least seven hydroelectric plants (Econochina.com , January 26, 2015).Thus the Asian country has been ensured a steady flow of raw materials, on which its booming industry and its increasingly better-nourished population depend. Two bits of information: GDP per capita grew from $205 in 1980 to $4289 in 2010; 46% of GDP is industrial.
For this reason, 83% of acquisitions by Chinese companies in Latin America were centered on energy and natural resources. China consumes 36% of the global oil exports, 19% of the mineral exports, and 20% of fuel exports. It is the world's leading consumer of aluminum, copper, tin, zinc and soy, and second in sugar and oil. This enormous scale of consumption shapes imports and trade relations with Latin America.
Industrial growth translates into changes in its export patterns. China reports strong growth in the sale of capital goods and research and development intensive products, to the point that it accounts for 20% of global capital goods exports.
This type of trade (raw materials for manufactured goods) consolidates historical imbalances affecting the region. According to CEPAL, the export canasta of Latin American countries to China is far less sophisticated than to the rest of the world. In 2013, primary products accounted for 73% of exports from the region to China, compared to only 41% of shipments to the world. In contrast, manufacturing accounted for only 6% of sales to China compared to 42% of the world. In turn, 92% of imports from China are manufactured goods, compared to 69% from the rest of the world. All countries in the region export fewer products to China than to other destinations. In 2013 Uruguay exported 1387 different products to CELAC countries, 434 to the US, 1024 to Europe, and only 106 to China. Brazil and Mexico, countries with more diversified exports, had a similar pattern: almost 4000 products sold to CELAC countries compared to just 1000 to China.
The truth is that until now, in the model of China's trade relations with Ecuador and Venezuela--two key partners--little has changed from trade patterns installed during the colonial period.
Broad spectrum alliances
A modern 27-story tower topped by a rectangular arch, nestled in the heart of Puerto Madero, is the first sight for travelers arriving by ship to the Buenos Aires port. At the top of the green building, four letters are visible: ICBC, which stands for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. [The bank's] portfolio took over Standard Bank, which occupied the building until 2011. It is the world's largest bank in terms of market capitalization, profitability, and customer deposits. It is also the most valuable brand in the financial sector worldwide. ICBC Argentina inherited U.S.-based Standard Bank's 103 branches in 17 provinces and three thousand employees, a million customers, and more than 30,000 companies, coming in at seventh in the ranking of private banks in Argentina (Crónica, April 8, 2013). In some way it symbolizes a presence that goes far beyond those of open pit mining and massive soybean imports.
In 2010, there was a shift in China-Latin America relations. In the two decades prior, around $7 billion foreign direct investment from China came to the region. But that year recorded $14 billion in Chinese foreign direct investment, focused on two oil industry acquisitions: SINOPEC in Brazil and CNOOC in Argentina.
High levels of Chinese direct investment kept coming in the last few years, mostly centered on mining and hydrocarbons but with a tendency to diversify. This year China financed the purchase of trains by Argentina for $10 billion (Valor, 14 September 2014).Investments in manufacturing have concentrated on Brazil. The trend is to install a plant after years of exporting their products to the country, according to CEPAL, to circumvent import restrictions. The inauguration of the first Chery factory in Brazil is going to open a new chapter. It will produce 150,000 vehicles per year with three thousand employees, export to the entire region, and open a technology research center in Jacareí, Sao Paulo state.
We are witnessing a process of diversification, still incipient, that is leading Chinese capital to turn to infrastructure, services, and manufacturing. In Ecuador, mining and oil investments tack on contracts in public safety, public health, road safety and water. There are 20 Chinese companies with projects in ten sectors of the economy, funded by Eximbank and the China Development Bank (Planv.com, December 27, 2014). The Integrated System of Citizen Safety taken on by the Chinese technology company CEIEC installed hundreds of cameras on roads and in cities, with images linked and integrated with a network of institutions ranging from fire stations and police to emergency services and transit, as well as GPS systems and cameras in 55,000 buses. Chinese company CAMEC constructed the four largest hospitals on the coast (in Guayaquil, Portoviejo, and Esmeraldas), and provided 200 ambulances to the public health system. In the coming years, Chinese funding is, after long comings and goings, expected to put the Pacific refinery, the Quito metro, and more than 200 schools in place.
The case of Argentina is, from the point of view of diversification, the most emblematic along with Brazil. In mid-2014 Cristina Fernández began a rapid rapprochement with China that gelled in the Supplementary Agreement of Cooperation in Infrastructure, approved by Senate in late December. China will have priority in areas such as energy, mining, agriculture, and industrial park development, plus tax advantages and direct public works concession without competitive bidding (Estado de Sao Paulo January 18, 2015). As part of the agreement, China approved a swap for $11 billion that increased Argentine international reserves and will be used for the construction of two hydroelectric dams in Santa Cruz province and plenty of railway equipment, including cars to renovate dilapidated trains.
During Crisitina Fernández 's visit to China in early February, she agreed to support the construction of the fourth and fifth nuclear plants, in both cases with Argentine components (70% and 50% ). The president stressed that "Argentina wants to increase currency swap with China, welcomes Chinese auto and telecommunications companies to build factories in the country, and hopes for the participation of more Chinese companies in the exploitation of potassium and lithium resources in Argentina" (Xinghua, February 5, 2015).
A new beginning
That agreement has triggered strong criticism in Brazil, as Argentina is the main market for Brazilian industry. "It was a Brazilian strategic failure," said Klaus Müller of the Brazilian Association of Machinery and Equipment Industry. "The loss of a market for Brazilian products in Argentina to the Chinese will increase now, to the detriment of domestic industry" (Estado de Sao Paulo, January 18, 2015). Argentine imports of Brazilian products fell 25% in 2014. In the area of machinery, the Brazilian fall was 34%, compared with a 14% increase in Chinese imports. Brazilian business believes that 2014 was "the year that China's influence on Argentina became more visible" (Valor, September 14, 2014).
The truth is that the diversification of Chinese investment "to sectors other than extractive industries such as manufacturing, services and infrastructure" as promoted in CEPAL discourse, cannot move forward without conflict. Three quarters of Argentine exports to China are soybeans, and only 13% are processed soybeans. More than 70% of exports from Brazil (sixth industrial power in the world) to China are soybeans and iron ore. Changing this pattern will not be simple.
Niches of real cooperation in the area of defense, however, are being generated. Venezuela developed a factory for small satellites (of up to a ton in weight) with China. In October of last year, Venezuela commission the construction and launch of the third satellite, "Antonio José de Sucre," which will be its second intelligence satellite after "Francisco de Miranda" (launched in 2012), and the "Simón Bolívar" telecommunications satellite (launched in 2008). This year the Center for Space Research and Development in Puerto Cabello will open, where satellites will be designed, assembled, integrated, and verified for use in low orbits (defensa.com, February 2, 2015).
There is a link between Chinese companies and the integrated defense system of Brazilian Amazonia, as well as with other defense matters with several countries in the region. In the same vein, China has just offered offshore patrol vessels to Argentina and Uruguay at prices well below those of Western countries, in addition to offering training and combat aircraft to Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador.
In her recent visit to Beijing, Argentine president signed "broad and ambitious defense agreements" that may influence the choices Argentina's neighbors make in the future (defensa.com, February 2, 2015). Perhaps defense offers opportunities for relationships different from those Latin American countries have had with developed countries, for those who are just markets for their products.
"China is becoming a world leader in technological innovation," says Brazilian professor of economic policy José Luis Fiori, one of the most incisive geopolitical analysts (Outraspalavras, June 4, 2013). Following the example of the United States seven decades ago, "this advance is based on military research" as "dual" technologies--applicable to both civil and military industry--are developed. This indicates that China has left behind the period in which it grew through the copy of Western technologies. Chinese advances in microelectronics, computers, telecommunications, nuclear and solar energy, biotechnology, and aerospace show that cutting-edge research and innovation cannot be left in the hands of the market. Something similar happened with the United States before becoming an empire. Cooperation in such sensitive areas as the most advanced technologies can be a test to see if the Asian power that seeks to relieve the empire carries state relations capable of changing historical inequalities.
Raúl Zibechiis international relations editor at the magazine Brecha in Montevideo, adviser to grassroots organizations and writer of the monthly Zibechi Report of the CIP Americas Program www.cipamericas.orgTranslation: Paige Patchin[1] “Explorando espacios de cooperación en comercio e inversión," Cepal, enero 2015.]]>"The United States is no longer our privileged partner. Now the privileged partner is China," Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño stated at the close of the third summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in Costa Rica on January 29.
"China is willing to work with Latin American and Caribbean states in the long term and with a strategic outlook, in order to build a new platform for collective cooperation between both sides," President Xi Jinping stressed at the opening of the first China-CELAC forum in Beijing on January 8 (Xinhua, January 8, 2015).
The Beijing Declaration, signed by the 33 foreign ministers of CELAC, provides a five-year plan for cooperation and agrees to hold a second meeting in Chile in 2018.
The two meetings were interrelated. The Chinese government announced its intention to double bilateral trade with the region to $500 billion by 2025. Looked at carefully, that's not so much, given that bilateral trade increased 22-fold from 2000 to 2013, making China go "from a minor to central player in foreign trade in the region," as evident in the CEPAL report from the first CELAC-China forum.[1] In a speech at the forum, President Xi declared that China will invest $250 billion in the region in the next decade, which will focus not only on primary resource extraction as before, but also infrastructure (transport, railways, ports and roads), technology projects, and research and development.
CEPAL's executive director Alicia Bárcena stressed that "China can become a great alternative for the region [Latin America and the Caribbean] this year," characterized by a drop in commodity prices and a very modest growth rate expected to be only 2% (Xinghua, January 31, 2015). In Bárcena's opinion, China is changing its model, which enables new and better opportunities for the region: "China was a country of high [foreign] investment and low [domestic] consumption; now it is lowering investment and increasing its consumption. That means that Chinese investment will be looking for where to invest, and Latin America is one of those places."
CEPAL's director of international trade and integration Osvaldo Rosales stressed China's commitment to upholding a relationship "of equality, mutual benefit, and a model of open and inclusive cooperation," which should translate into a central aspect for development in Latin America and the diversification of its exports (Xinhua, January 13, 2015).
In search of raw materials
As recently as four years ago, relations between Latin American counties and China were focused on Asian interest in the purchase of raw materials: oil, hydrocarbons, and minerals. In some cases China overtook large sums to ensure its oil supply, as in the case of Venezuela, turning the axis of exports from the US to the Asian giant.
Between 2005 and 2013, [Venezuela] received $50 billion, mostly in exchange for oil, but also as credits for housing and infrastructure construction (Valor, April 4, 2013). Other sources claim that the oil credits total $40 billion (Econochina.com, January 11, 2015). Oil and mineral negotiations have been similar for Ecuador: fresh money in exchange for commodities, which allows governments without access to international credits cash, to be able to roll out the state machinery. In this case, $8 billion.
According to vice president Jorge Glas, "China lends without IMF conditionality," ensuring the relationship is not conditioned, and more diversified, including support for a refinery in the Pacific and at least seven hydroelectric plants (Econochina.com , January 26, 2015).Thus the Asian country has been ensured a steady flow of raw materials, on which its booming industry and its increasingly better-nourished population depend. Two bits of information: GDP per capita grew from $205 in 1980 to $4289 in 2010; 46% of GDP is industrial.
For this reason, 83% of acquisitions by Chinese companies in Latin America were centered on energy and natural resources. China consumes 36% of the global oil exports, 19% of the mineral exports, and 20% of fuel exports. It is the world's leading consumer of aluminum, copper, tin, zinc and soy, and second in sugar and oil. This enormous scale of consumption shapes imports and trade relations with Latin America.
Industrial growth translates into changes in its export patterns. China reports strong growth in the sale of capital goods and research and development intensive products, to the point that it accounts for 20% of global capital goods exports.
This type of trade (raw materials for manufactured goods) consolidates historical imbalances affecting the region. According to CEPAL, the export canasta of Latin American countries to China is far less sophisticated than to the rest of the world. In 2013, primary products accounted for 73% of exports from the region to China, compared to only 41% of shipments to the world. In contrast, manufacturing accounted for only 6% of sales to China compared to 42% of the world. In turn, 92% of imports from China are manufactured goods, compared to 69% from the rest of the world. All countries in the region export fewer products to China than to other destinations. In 2013 Uruguay exported 1387 different products to CELAC countries, 434 to the US, 1024 to Europe, and only 106 to China. Brazil and Mexico, countries with more diversified exports, had a similar pattern: almost 4000 products sold to CELAC countries compared to just 1000 to China.
The truth is that until now, in the model of China's trade relations with Ecuador and Venezuela--two key partners--little has changed from trade patterns installed during the colonial period.
Broad spectrum alliances
A modern 27-story tower topped by a rectangular arch, nestled in the heart of Puerto Madero, is the first sight for travelers arriving by ship to the Buenos Aires port. At the top of the green building, four letters are visible: ICBC, which stands for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. [The bank's] portfolio took over Standard Bank, which occupied the building until 2011. It is the world's largest bank in terms of market capitalization, profitability, and customer deposits. It is also the most valuable brand in the financial sector worldwide. ICBC Argentina inherited U.S.-based Standard Bank's 103 branches in 17 provinces and three thousand employees, a million customers, and more than 30,000 companies, coming in at seventh in the ranking of private banks in Argentina (Crónica, April 8, 2013). In some way it symbolizes a presence that goes far beyond those of open pit mining and massive soybean imports.
In 2010, there was a shift in China-Latin America relations. In the two decades prior, around $7 billion foreign direct investment from China came to the region. But that year recorded $14 billion in Chinese foreign direct investment, focused on two oil industry acquisitions: SINOPEC in Brazil and CNOOC in Argentina.
High levels of Chinese direct investment kept coming in the last few years, mostly centered on mining and hydrocarbons but with a tendency to diversify. This year China financed the purchase of trains by Argentina for $10 billion (Valor, 14 September 2014).Investments in manufacturing have concentrated on Brazil. The trend is to install a plant after years of exporting their products to the country, according to CEPAL, to circumvent import restrictions. The inauguration of the first Chery factory in Brazil is going to open a new chapter. It will produce 150,000 vehicles per year with three thousand employees, export to the entire region, and open a technology research center in Jacareí, Sao Paulo state.
We are witnessing a process of diversification, still incipient, that is leading Chinese capital to turn to infrastructure, services, and manufacturing. In Ecuador, mining and oil investments tack on contracts in public safety, public health, road safety and water. There are 20 Chinese companies with projects in ten sectors of the economy, funded by Eximbank and the China Development Bank (Planv.com, December 27, 2014). The Integrated System of Citizen Safety taken on by the Chinese technology company CEIEC installed hundreds of cameras on roads and in cities, with images linked and integrated with a network of institutions ranging from fire stations and police to emergency services and transit, as well as GPS systems and cameras in 55,000 buses. Chinese company CAMEC constructed the four largest hospitals on the coast (in Guayaquil, Portoviejo, and Esmeraldas), and provided 200 ambulances to the public health system. In the coming years, Chinese funding is, after long comings and goings, expected to put the Pacific refinery, the Quito metro, and more than 200 schools in place.
The case of Argentina is, from the point of view of diversification, the most emblematic along with Brazil. In mid-2014 Cristina Fernández began a rapid rapprochement with China that gelled in the Supplementary Agreement of Cooperation in Infrastructure, approved by Senate in late December. China will have priority in areas such as energy, mining, agriculture, and industrial park development, plus tax advantages and direct public works concession without competitive bidding (Estado de Sao Paulo January 18, 2015). As part of the agreement, China approved a swap for $11 billion that increased Argentine international reserves and will be used for the construction of two hydroelectric dams in Santa Cruz province and plenty of railway equipment, including cars to renovate dilapidated trains.
During Crisitina Fernández 's visit to China in early February, she agreed to support the construction of the fourth and fifth nuclear plants, in both cases with Argentine components (70% and 50% ). The president stressed that "Argentina wants to increase currency swap with China, welcomes Chinese auto and telecommunications companies to build factories in the country, and hopes for the participation of more Chinese companies in the exploitation of potassium and lithium resources in Argentina" (Xinghua, February 5, 2015).
A new beginning
That agreement has triggered strong criticism in Brazil, as Argentina is the main market for Brazilian industry. "It was a Brazilian strategic failure," said Klaus Müller of the Brazilian Association of Machinery and Equipment Industry. "The loss of a market for Brazilian products in Argentina to the Chinese will increase now, to the detriment of domestic industry" (Estado de Sao Paulo, January 18, 2015). Argentine imports of Brazilian products fell 25% in 2014. In the area of machinery, the Brazilian fall was 34%, compared with a 14% increase in Chinese imports. Brazilian business believes that 2014 was "the year that China's influence on Argentina became more visible" (Valor, September 14, 2014).
The truth is that the diversification of Chinese investment "to sectors other than extractive industries such as manufacturing, services and infrastructure" as promoted in CEPAL discourse, cannot move forward without conflict. Three quarters of Argentine exports to China are soybeans, and only 13% are processed soybeans. More than 70% of exports from Brazil (sixth industrial power in the world) to China are soybeans and iron ore. Changing this pattern will not be simple.
Niches of real cooperation in the area of defense, however, are being generated. Venezuela developed a factory for small satellites (of up to a ton in weight) with China. In October of last year, Venezuela commission the construction and launch of the third satellite, "Antonio José de Sucre," which will be its second intelligence satellite after "Francisco de Miranda" (launched in 2012), and the "Simón Bolívar" telecommunications satellite (launched in 2008). This year the Center for Space Research and Development in Puerto Cabello will open, where satellites will be designed, assembled, integrated, and verified for use in low orbits (defensa.com, February 2, 2015).
There is a link between Chinese companies and the integrated defense system of Brazilian Amazonia, as well as with other defense matters with several countries in the region. In the same vein, China has just offered offshore patrol vessels to Argentina and Uruguay at prices well below those of Western countries, in addition to offering training and combat aircraft to Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador.
In her recent visit to Beijing, Argentine president signed "broad and ambitious defense agreements" that may influence the choices Argentina's neighbors make in the future (defensa.com, February 2, 2015). Perhaps defense offers opportunities for relationships different from those Latin American countries have had with developed countries, for those who are just markets for their products.
"China is becoming a world leader in technological innovation," says Brazilian professor of economic policy José Luis Fiori, one of the most incisive geopolitical analysts (Outraspalavras, June 4, 2013). Following the example of the United States seven decades ago, "this advance is based on military research" as "dual" technologies--applicable to both civil and military industry--are developed. This indicates that China has left behind the period in which it grew through the copy of Western technologies. Chinese advances in microelectronics, computers, telecommunications, nuclear and solar energy, biotechnology, and aerospace show that cutting-edge research and innovation cannot be left in the hands of the market. Something similar happened with the United States before becoming an empire. Cooperation in such sensitive areas as the most advanced technologies can be a test to see if the Asian power that seeks to relieve the empire carries state relations capable of changing historical inequalities.
Raúl Zibechiis international relations editor at the magazine Brecha in Montevideo, adviser to grassroots organizations and writer of the monthly Zibechi Report of the CIP Americas Program www.cipamericas.orgTranslation: Paige Patchin[1] “Explorando espacios de cooperación en comercio e inversión," Cepal, enero 2015.]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14692/feed0Grassroots Movement Blocks Water Privatization in Mexicohttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14688
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14688#commentsFri, 13 Mar 2015 15:45:31 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14688The ruling party (PRI) and its allies, the National Action Party (PAN), the Partido Verde and New Alliance, were forced to back down in the Chamber of Deputies. The privatization offensive launched this time against water, will have to wait for another day—preferably for its promoters, not around elections.
The procedure to rule on the proposed General Water Act, scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, was deferred indefinitely. A news report recorded the aggressive response of PRI deputy Manlio Fabio Beltrones, who bared his disappointment in no uncertain terms. He described those who called the initiative regressive as "slow learners", and said the approval process for the initiative was suspended because "some politicians in campaign want to take it as a banner and run with it."
The fact is that faced with this imminent heist of public goods, the citizenry reacted immediately. The Union of Concerned Scientists in Mexico demanded a public discussion of the initiative and issued a statement that in a few hours garnered over ten thousand signatures.
The scientists denounced the lack of transparency in the approval process for the initiative and affirmed that the contents violate Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, which reads, "Everyone has the right to access, provision and sanitation of water for personal and domestic consumption as sufficient, safe, acceptable and affordable. The State guarantees this right.”
The organization identified four serious problems in the bill.
1) It promotes the privatization of water, considered primarily as an economic good and not a cultural and social good. It accentuates inequality in access to water by raising tariffs and compromises availability for the functioning of ecosystems.
2) It promotes the displacement and death of rivers by legalizing the practice of transferring water by moving large volumes from one basin to another.
3) It broadens margins to pollute water by establishing a limited list of contaminants that would be constantly outdated.
4) It restricts, conditions and sanctions studies, scientific research and social monitoring.
The experts alerted the academic community and society about the attempt by the National Water Commission to"fast-track" approval of the initiative of the General Water Law. The fast-track proposal was presented by legislators Kamel Athié Flowers (PRI), José Antonio Rojo García de Alba (PRI), Sergio Augusto Chan Lugo (PAN) and Gerardo Gaudiano Rovirosa (PRD).
More than thirty organizations, movements and academic researchers came together in the Water for All group to demand that lawmakers reject the initiative and instead consider the citizen-proposed General Water Law, submitted to the the Senate on February 24 of this year.
The citizens' initiative was circulated as a petition by AVAAZ and at the time of this writing has nearly 14,000 signatures. The petition demands that Congress discard the privatization initiative and engage in "genuine dialogue for the conclusion of a General Water Law that allows to Mexico transition to a sustainable and equitable management, in full respect of human rights".
The citizens' initiative consists of 176 articles and 19 transitory clauses that regulate the constitutional provisions on access to water for personal and domestic consumption and define "the foundations, supports and arrangements for access and equitable and sustainable use of water resources".
It establishes the powers of the federal, state and municipal governments, and citizen participation: to guarantee human rights to water, food in relation to water and a healthy environment through the availability of sufficient water quality for ecosystems; and ensure preferential use of water by indigenous peoples and respect for their forms of government in relation to water.
It also provides measures to restore the flow of groundwater and surface water, progressively eliminate pollution and activities that destroy or impair the basins and groundwater, and end the vulnerability of the population to droughts and floods caused by inadequate management of watersheds.
In contrast, the purpose of the initiative promoted by the government of Enrique Peña Nieto--called the “Korenfeld Act” after Commission director David Korenfeld--is to place distribution of the vital liquid under the control of the private sector. This will raise rates and will not lead to better service, as indicated by many local and global experiences. It also favors water use for fracking. The latter has led some opposition lawmakers to consider the initiative a companion piece to the energy reform passed last year.
Fracking consumes enormous amounts of water. It requires between 9,000 and 29,000 cubic meters of water to operate a single well and major shale deposits are located in the most arid regions of the country, consequent pressure on the sustainability of water resources.
The official initiative also allows inheritance of water concessions, continues to permit trafficking in concessions, changes the term "assignment" to "concession", allows an entreprenuer who builds a canal or pipeline to become a concession-holder and requires the government to incorporate private investment in water management.
The reform violates international treaties and contravenes the World World Health Organization, which sets the minimum amount of water needed per person for basic existence at 100 liters per day. The initiative cruelly halves that amount, stating that the State will only guarantee 50 liters per person- clearly inadequate to meet basic consumption and personal hygiene needs.
Concerned about this latest attack on fundamental rights, members of the National Convention of Peasant and Indigenous Organizations addressed the issue and scheduled demonstrations to prevent the privatization of water.
For its part, the parliamentary groups of the parties Citizen Movement, PRD, PT and Morena threatened to occupy the podium of Congress if necessary to stop the adoption of the committee approval in the full Legislature.
The scheme to deliver water into the hands of special interests began years ago. According to economist Eduardo Esquivel of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), there are two types of concessions in Mexico--small and large farmers, and large corporations such as Coca-Cola, Femsa, Pepsico, Nestle and others.
"Since 1994 around 27 hydraulic concessions have been given out to 16 bottlers in 10 states and affecting 15 rivers: five in Aguascalientes, two in Zacatecas, five in Jalisco, three in Colima, one in Coahuila, five in Durango, one in Zacatecas, one in Guerrero and one in Morelia. The largest grant was awarded in 2001 under the government of Vicente Fox, to the Cuernavaca bottling plant for 1,353,000 cubic meters of groundwater from the Rio Balsas", he recently wrote.
With this victory of grassroots mobilization, legislators loyal to the Peña Nieto government have been temporarily prevented from formalizing the privatization of water, which would have given large companies broad control of the precious resource, to set rates and boost their profits. However, the threat remains latent. The rapid and massive response by the peasant and indigenous organizations and citizens for now has made it clear that the privatization measures of the current government will have an increasingly high political cost.
]]>The ruling party (PRI) and its allies, the National Action Party (PAN), the Partido Verde and New Alliance, were forced to back down in the Chamber of Deputies. The privatization offensive launched this time against water, will have to wait for another day—preferably for its promoters, not around elections.
The procedure to rule on the proposed General Water Act, scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, was deferred indefinitely. A news report recorded the aggressive response of PRI deputy Manlio Fabio Beltrones, who bared his disappointment in no uncertain terms. He described those who called the initiative regressive as "slow learners", and said the approval process for the initiative was suspended because "some politicians in campaign want to take it as a banner and run with it."
The fact is that faced with this imminent heist of public goods, the citizenry reacted immediately. The Union of Concerned Scientists in Mexico demanded a public discussion of the initiative and issued a statement that in a few hours garnered over ten thousand signatures.
The scientists denounced the lack of transparency in the approval process for the initiative and affirmed that the contents violate Article 4 of the Mexican Constitution, which reads, "Everyone has the right to access, provision and sanitation of water for personal and domestic consumption as sufficient, safe, acceptable and affordable. The State guarantees this right.”
The organization identified four serious problems in the bill.
1) It promotes the privatization of water, considered primarily as an economic good and not a cultural and social good. It accentuates inequality in access to water by raising tariffs and compromises availability for the functioning of ecosystems.
2) It promotes the displacement and death of rivers by legalizing the practice of transferring water by moving large volumes from one basin to another.
3) It broadens margins to pollute water by establishing a limited list of contaminants that would be constantly outdated.
4) It restricts, conditions and sanctions studies, scientific research and social monitoring.
The experts alerted the academic community and society about the attempt by the National Water Commission to"fast-track" approval of the initiative of the General Water Law. The fast-track proposal was presented by legislators Kamel Athié Flowers (PRI), José Antonio Rojo García de Alba (PRI), Sergio Augusto Chan Lugo (PAN) and Gerardo Gaudiano Rovirosa (PRD).
More than thirty organizations, movements and academic researchers came together in the Water for All group to demand that lawmakers reject the initiative and instead consider the citizen-proposed General Water Law, submitted to the the Senate on February 24 of this year.
The citizens' initiative was circulated as a petition by AVAAZ and at the time of this writing has nearly 14,000 signatures. The petition demands that Congress discard the privatization initiative and engage in "genuine dialogue for the conclusion of a General Water Law that allows to Mexico transition to a sustainable and equitable management, in full respect of human rights".
The citizens' initiative consists of 176 articles and 19 transitory clauses that regulate the constitutional provisions on access to water for personal and domestic consumption and define "the foundations, supports and arrangements for access and equitable and sustainable use of water resources".
It establishes the powers of the federal, state and municipal governments, and citizen participation: to guarantee human rights to water, food in relation to water and a healthy environment through the availability of sufficient water quality for ecosystems; and ensure preferential use of water by indigenous peoples and respect for their forms of government in relation to water.
It also provides measures to restore the flow of groundwater and surface water, progressively eliminate pollution and activities that destroy or impair the basins and groundwater, and end the vulnerability of the population to droughts and floods caused by inadequate management of watersheds.
In contrast, the purpose of the initiative promoted by the government of Enrique Peña Nieto--called the “Korenfeld Act” after Commission director David Korenfeld--is to place distribution of the vital liquid under the control of the private sector. This will raise rates and will not lead to better service, as indicated by many local and global experiences. It also favors water use for fracking. The latter has led some opposition lawmakers to consider the initiative a companion piece to the energy reform passed last year.
Fracking consumes enormous amounts of water. It requires between 9,000 and 29,000 cubic meters of water to operate a single well and major shale deposits are located in the most arid regions of the country, consequent pressure on the sustainability of water resources.
The official initiative also allows inheritance of water concessions, continues to permit trafficking in concessions, changes the term "assignment" to "concession", allows an entreprenuer who builds a canal or pipeline to become a concession-holder and requires the government to incorporate private investment in water management.
The reform violates international treaties and contravenes the World World Health Organization, which sets the minimum amount of water needed per person for basic existence at 100 liters per day. The initiative cruelly halves that amount, stating that the State will only guarantee 50 liters per person- clearly inadequate to meet basic consumption and personal hygiene needs.
Concerned about this latest attack on fundamental rights, members of the National Convention of Peasant and Indigenous Organizations addressed the issue and scheduled demonstrations to prevent the privatization of water.
For its part, the parliamentary groups of the parties Citizen Movement, PRD, PT and Morena threatened to occupy the podium of Congress if necessary to stop the adoption of the committee approval in the full Legislature.
The scheme to deliver water into the hands of special interests began years ago. According to economist Eduardo Esquivel of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), there are two types of concessions in Mexico--small and large farmers, and large corporations such as Coca-Cola, Femsa, Pepsico, Nestle and others.
"Since 1994 around 27 hydraulic concessions have been given out to 16 bottlers in 10 states and affecting 15 rivers: five in Aguascalientes, two in Zacatecas, five in Jalisco, three in Colima, one in Coahuila, five in Durango, one in Zacatecas, one in Guerrero and one in Morelia. The largest grant was awarded in 2001 under the government of Vicente Fox, to the Cuernavaca bottling plant for 1,353,000 cubic meters of groundwater from the Rio Balsas", he recently wrote.
With this victory of grassroots mobilization, legislators loyal to the Peña Nieto government have been temporarily prevented from formalizing the privatization of water, which would have given large companies broad control of the precious resource, to set rates and boost their profits. However, the threat remains latent. The rapid and massive response by the peasant and indigenous organizations and citizens for now has made it clear that the privatization measures of the current government will have an increasingly high political cost.
]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14688/feed2“The Other Ayotzinapa”: Organizing Against Feminicide in Mexicohttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14672
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14672#commentsFri, 13 Mar 2015 05:24:53 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14672Over the past weeks, the bodies of three women were found in three different municipalities of the State of Mexico. The State of Mexico is the most dangerous state for women -- 10 times more women have been murdered there then in Ciudad Juarez over the last 21 years.
The bullet-ridden body of one woman was found washed ashore on the edge of a sewage canal in Tequixquiac on Feb.17. Residents found the body of the victim, dressed in a pair of blue jeans, a black jacket, and boots, with severe trauma to the head. That same week, a mother found the body of her daughter, twenty-year-old Marisol, on the street in San Roque. The third young woman, Rosaura, was found murdered, floating in a river canal in Tenancingo.
Marisol, Rosaura, and the woman found in Tequixquiac are only three of more than 1,500 women assassinated in the State of Mexico since 2005. They are victims of feminicide—the term used to describe the murder of women because they are women. It refers to gender-based violence characterized by discrimination, sexism and misogyny and often includes sexual abuse and other gender-specific signs of mutilation and torture prior to the murder. In Mexico, like much of Latin America, feminicide has been linked to sexism and structural violence rooted in social, political, economic, and cultural inequalities.
Feminicides, a National Epidemic
As the demand for justice for the 43 disappeared Ayotzinapa students continues in streets worldwide, the epidemic of violence against women grows and justice for its victims remains relegated to a labyrinth of impunity, inefficiency and government indifference.
Yet the demand for justice and against feminicide has not only endured over three decades of violence, but continues to mobilize people across borders. At the end of the International Women’s Day March in Los Angeles on March 8, Carla Castañeda began a 72-hour hunger strike to demand justice for her missing daughter Cynthia Jocabeth Castañeda and all the daughters of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Carla, along with the mothers of the Ayotzinapa students and the thousands of other relatives of disappeared people, is seeking information on the whereabouts of her daughter kidnapped six years ago. She is demanding the government files on the investigation around her daughter’s disappearance from the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles.
Though official and human rights groups’ statistics vary, reports document an increase in feminicide that dates back at least twenty-five years. On a national scale, feminicide has increased 55 percent between 1990 and 2011. According to a report produced by UN-Women in 2012, cases of feminicide in the country have increased steadily since the year 2007. And more recently, the National Citizen Femicide Observatory (OCNF), a coalition of 43 groups that document the crime, identified that only 24 percent of the 3,892 femicides the group identified in 2012 and 2013 were investigated by authorities and and only 1.6 percent led to sentencing.
Out of the approximately 4,000 women disappeared throughout the country in 2011-2012, mostly in Chihuahua and in the State of Mexico, a majority are either presumed murdered or working in the cartel-run sex trade.
There currently exists no comprehensive policy that facilitates justice for the victims or federal-level classification of the crime of feminicide. Institutional inefficacy and discrimination pervades all stages of criminal proceedings. Too often, government investigators decide that cases involving violence against women are not worth their time.
The Other Ayotzinapa
The demand for justice for the Ayotzinapa teacher’s college students has catalyzed protests throughout hundreds of cities worldwide and catalyzed a movement against forced disappearances and state violence in Mexico and beyond. It has raised serious questions surrounding the Mexican government role, impunity and lack of transparency in investigations of human rights violations. Protests in Mexico City, led by the disappeared students’ families, have drawn nearly half a million people to the streets. During these giant demonstrations, women have marched to demand justice for the 43 students and thousands of others, overwhelmingly women, who have been disappeared and whose cases remain unresolved.
The feminist collective Pan y Rosas Mexico organized a series of forums and protests titled “Women: The Other Ayotzinapa” in Mexico City to discuss and publicize feminicide. The collective, founded in Argentina and established in Mexico in 2010, works to stop feminicide.
In an interview with the Americas Program, Francisca, a member of Pan y Rosas and active participant in the "The Other Ayotzinapa” initiative, explains the history of the collective.
“Since our inception as a collective in Mexico, we’ve tried to organize a strong front against feminicide. Women are murdered every day throughout the country. It was recently found that every 6 hours and 20 minutes, 7 women are murdered and these numbers reflect a reality that all of us women experience as a result of a phenomenon that dates back more than 20 years in Ciudad Juarez--the feminicide of the women of Juarez—and that today has extended to all the states in the country.”
Francisca cites the widespread and systemic violence against women that was first documented in Ciudad Juarez, but now is present in the State of Mexico, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Guerrero, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla and Sinaloa. She notes that feminicide is a major human rights issue in Mexico, yet it has been marginalized by many experts and academics who do not consider it a category of analysis. Pan y Rosas believes that feminicide is a crime that stems from poverty, the precarious work conditions of women, and misogyny resulting in sexual torture and violence against the victims’ bodies.
“Femicides have extended throughout the country in a very terrible way and have increased as a result of drug-cartel related violence, which includes the sex trade of women,” Francisca told the Americas Program.
At a time when people are disappeared everyday and mass unmarked graves have been uncovered throughout Guerrero and the country, as a feminist organizer Francisca connects the history of activism around feminicide with the pain many families have faced upon the disappearances of their loved ones.
“It is years of impunity that weigh on our shoulders. In the last few years feminicide has moved hundreds of parents of disappeared women to action, like Norma Andrade, from Bring Our Daughters Home, who have used the same protest chants popular during the Dirty War of the 70s when mothers also searched for their children. The mothers of Juarez have adopted the chant of that era “They took them alive, we want them back alive” for their missing daughters. This chant characterizes the protests for Ayotzinapa, the latest movement in a country where forced disappearances, feminicide, the violation of human rights, and political corruption is everyday news.”
She explains that this is why Pan y Rosas joins in the collective protest against impunity and state violence in Mexico sparked by Ayotzinapa and adds that the case has detonated a grassroots phenomenon in the streets that has served to denounce many injustices, from feminicide to the criminalization of social protest under the PRI ruling party. Ayotzinapa uncovered the link that exists between the government and the drug traffickers and exposed the state as responsible for the disappearances, she notes.
“This is why it's important to say that women are the other Ayotzinapa, because we also experience impunity and because there are hundreds of mothers who began to organize and became activists to demand the return of their daughters.”
Pan y Rosas has held forums in universities and community centers since December. The events open up discussion on the call for a gender violence alert in the State of Mexico, first requested in 2011 and rejected by then-governor and current president Enrique Peña Nieto, and the recent feminicide of a woman employee of the Liverpool department store in Mexico City. Members of the collective participated in a panel with mothers of the missing Ayotzinapa students March 7 in Mexico City.
“It was very humbling to participate in the panel with the mothers of the 43 students, who are women activists in search of their children, who the state wants to silence and who distrust the official versions that say their children are dead and instead continue to search for them,” said Francisca.
Broadening the Human Rights Frame Rosa-Linda Fregoso is a leading feminicide scholar from University of California Santa Cruz who served as a judge on the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT) hearings on gender violence and feminicide held in Ciudad Juarez Sept. 21-13, 2014.
Fregoso, along with four other judges, heard 27 cases of feminicide and gender violence, including forced disappearance and trafficking, domestic violence, women under conditions of war, violence against human rights defenders, forced exile, and structural violence. The judges listened, witnessed, validated and rendered judgment on the human rights violations and violence committed by the Mexican government, through the direct action of government officials or indirectly by persons or groups acting with the authorization, support, or complicity of the state.
The Americas Program asked Fregoso about the lack of mobilizations against feminicide in light of the mass demonstrations to protest the disappearance of the teacher’s college students in Guerrero.
“I don’t think feminicides have been necessarily overlooked as much as they have not received consistent support and attention from the media and progressive activists,” said Fregoso.
“There are a number of reasons for the mass mobilizations for the students of Ayotzinapa. For one, the specter of the Tlatelolco massacre of October 1968 continues to haunt Mexico, when security forces killed three hundred student protesters and arrested hundreds more. Similar to the earlier Dirty War, in this new Dirty War - coined the Drug War- the Mexican government has used its forces to suppress political rivals, by subcontracting state violence either to paramilitary force like the Batallón Olimpica of Tlatelolco or via municipal police to drug traffickers involved in Ayotzinapa,” Fregoso told the Americas Program.
Fregoso believes that the Ayotzinapa case represents the tipping point for this new dirty war against civil society. She recounts the human cost of the war on drugs launched by former president Felipe Calderon, which has resulted in over 130,000 people murdered and 30,000 disappeared, with more than 5,000 disappeared in 2014 alone.
“We heard dozens of cases of 'enforced disappearances' during the PPT hearings on gender violences and feminicides, in testimony by mothers, family members, and non-governmental organizations like the Women’s Human Rights Center in Chihuahua, which has been participating for years in the movement for justice for the disappeared. So Ayotzinapa was just the tipping point for the ongoing atrocities and instances of State-sponsored terror against civil society,” stated Fregoso.
The lack of mass mobilization for disappeared women, says the academic, may also have to do with a hierarchy within the human rights regime, in which violations of civil and political rights are seen as more intolerable than encroachment of economic, social, and cultural rights.
“The college students of Ayotzinapa were disappeared for exercising their political rights to protest, whereas the motives behind the disappearances of women and girls are much more varied. Some women have been disappeared and/or murdered for demanding justice or exercising their political and civil rights, but many others have disappeared and/or been murdered because they are members of a social group, as women.”
The reluctance, indifference, disregard, and disrespect of government and state authorities in human rights violations related to feminicide represents a form of indirect state violence that also warrants mass mobilizations, according to Fregoso.
She explains that it is necessary to convince people and human rights activists of the importance of mobilizing for justice on behalf of disappeared women and girls and expand the frame of human rights violations and state-sponsored violence. Expanding the human rights frame implies classifying feminicides as enforced disappearance, a category defined by international law that compels direct or indirect state involvement.
Defined as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,” according to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, ‘enforced disappearances’ if applied to feminicides would push government authorities to resolve the overwhelming number of cases. Currently feminicide is classified with ‘disappearances’.
“The connection between feminicides and ‘enforced disappearances’ needs to be made because what we are dealing with in Mexico is a failed state, a feudalized state. One of the mothers who testified at the Hearing on Feminicide and Gender Violence stated about the culprits behind her daughter’s disappearance, ‘They are one in the same, state agents by day and hit men by night,’” concluded Fregoso.
The relentless work of feminist organizers, mothers, human rights scholars and the people who took to the streets this past March 8 in Mexico City and globally prove that the fight against the state-sponsored gender violence gripping Mexico will rest only when justice is served for the thousands of victims of feminicide.
]]>Over the past weeks, the bodies of three women were found in three different municipalities of the State of Mexico. The State of Mexico is the most dangerous state for women -- 10 times more women have been murdered there then in Ciudad Juarez over the last 21 years.
The bullet-ridden body of one woman was found washed ashore on the edge of a sewage canal in Tequixquiac on Feb.17. Residents found the body of the victim, dressed in a pair of blue jeans, a black jacket, and boots, with severe trauma to the head. That same week, a mother found the body of her daughter, twenty-year-old Marisol, on the street in San Roque. The third young woman, Rosaura, was found murdered, floating in a river canal in Tenancingo.
Marisol, Rosaura, and the woman found in Tequixquiac are only three of more than 1,500 women assassinated in the State of Mexico since 2005. They are victims of feminicide—the term used to describe the murder of women because they are women. It refers to gender-based violence characterized by discrimination, sexism and misogyny and often includes sexual abuse and other gender-specific signs of mutilation and torture prior to the murder. In Mexico, like much of Latin America, feminicide has been linked to sexism and structural violence rooted in social, political, economic, and cultural inequalities.
Feminicides, a National Epidemic
As the demand for justice for the 43 disappeared Ayotzinapa students continues in streets worldwide, the epidemic of violence against women grows and justice for its victims remains relegated to a labyrinth of impunity, inefficiency and government indifference.
Yet the demand for justice and against feminicide has not only endured over three decades of violence, but continues to mobilize people across borders. At the end of the International Women’s Day March in Los Angeles on March 8, Carla Castañeda began a 72-hour hunger strike to demand justice for her missing daughter Cynthia Jocabeth Castañeda and all the daughters of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Carla, along with the mothers of the Ayotzinapa students and the thousands of other relatives of disappeared people, is seeking information on the whereabouts of her daughter kidnapped six years ago. She is demanding the government files on the investigation around her daughter’s disappearance from the Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles.
Though official and human rights groups’ statistics vary, reports document an increase in feminicide that dates back at least twenty-five years. On a national scale, feminicide has increased 55 percent between 1990 and 2011. According to a report produced by UN-Women in 2012, cases of feminicide in the country have increased steadily since the year 2007. And more recently, the National Citizen Femicide Observatory (OCNF), a coalition of 43 groups that document the crime, identified that only 24 percent of the 3,892 femicides the group identified in 2012 and 2013 were investigated by authorities and and only 1.6 percent led to sentencing.
Out of the approximately 4,000 women disappeared throughout the country in 2011-2012, mostly in Chihuahua and in the State of Mexico, a majority are either presumed murdered or working in the cartel-run sex trade.
There currently exists no comprehensive policy that facilitates justice for the victims or federal-level classification of the crime of feminicide. Institutional inefficacy and discrimination pervades all stages of criminal proceedings. Too often, government investigators decide that cases involving violence against women are not worth their time.
The Other Ayotzinapa
The demand for justice for the Ayotzinapa teacher’s college students has catalyzed protests throughout hundreds of cities worldwide and catalyzed a movement against forced disappearances and state violence in Mexico and beyond. It has raised serious questions surrounding the Mexican government role, impunity and lack of transparency in investigations of human rights violations. Protests in Mexico City, led by the disappeared students’ families, have drawn nearly half a million people to the streets. During these giant demonstrations, women have marched to demand justice for the 43 students and thousands of others, overwhelmingly women, who have been disappeared and whose cases remain unresolved.
The feminist collective Pan y Rosas Mexico organized a series of forums and protests titled “Women: The Other Ayotzinapa” in Mexico City to discuss and publicize feminicide. The collective, founded in Argentina and established in Mexico in 2010, works to stop feminicide.
In an interview with the Americas Program, Francisca, a member of Pan y Rosas and active participant in the "The Other Ayotzinapa” initiative, explains the history of the collective.
“Since our inception as a collective in Mexico, we’ve tried to organize a strong front against feminicide. Women are murdered every day throughout the country. It was recently found that every 6 hours and 20 minutes, 7 women are murdered and these numbers reflect a reality that all of us women experience as a result of a phenomenon that dates back more than 20 years in Ciudad Juarez--the feminicide of the women of Juarez—and that today has extended to all the states in the country.”
Francisca cites the widespread and systemic violence against women that was first documented in Ciudad Juarez, but now is present in the State of Mexico, Chiapas, Chihuahua, Mexico City, Guerrero, Jalisco, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla and Sinaloa. She notes that feminicide is a major human rights issue in Mexico, yet it has been marginalized by many experts and academics who do not consider it a category of analysis. Pan y Rosas believes that feminicide is a crime that stems from poverty, the precarious work conditions of women, and misogyny resulting in sexual torture and violence against the victims’ bodies.
“Femicides have extended throughout the country in a very terrible way and have increased as a result of drug-cartel related violence, which includes the sex trade of women,” Francisca told the Americas Program.
At a time when people are disappeared everyday and mass unmarked graves have been uncovered throughout Guerrero and the country, as a feminist organizer Francisca connects the history of activism around feminicide with the pain many families have faced upon the disappearances of their loved ones.
“It is years of impunity that weigh on our shoulders. In the last few years feminicide has moved hundreds of parents of disappeared women to action, like Norma Andrade, from Bring Our Daughters Home, who have used the same protest chants popular during the Dirty War of the 70s when mothers also searched for their children. The mothers of Juarez have adopted the chant of that era “They took them alive, we want them back alive” for their missing daughters. This chant characterizes the protests for Ayotzinapa, the latest movement in a country where forced disappearances, feminicide, the violation of human rights, and political corruption is everyday news.”
She explains that this is why Pan y Rosas joins in the collective protest against impunity and state violence in Mexico sparked by Ayotzinapa and adds that the case has detonated a grassroots phenomenon in the streets that has served to denounce many injustices, from feminicide to the criminalization of social protest under the PRI ruling party. Ayotzinapa uncovered the link that exists between the government and the drug traffickers and exposed the state as responsible for the disappearances, she notes.
“This is why it's important to say that women are the other Ayotzinapa, because we also experience impunity and because there are hundreds of mothers who began to organize and became activists to demand the return of their daughters.”
Pan y Rosas has held forums in universities and community centers since December. The events open up discussion on the call for a gender violence alert in the State of Mexico, first requested in 2011 and rejected by then-governor and current president Enrique Peña Nieto, and the recent feminicide of a woman employee of the Liverpool department store in Mexico City. Members of the collective participated in a panel with mothers of the missing Ayotzinapa students March 7 in Mexico City.
“It was very humbling to participate in the panel with the mothers of the 43 students, who are women activists in search of their children, who the state wants to silence and who distrust the official versions that say their children are dead and instead continue to search for them,” said Francisca.
Broadening the Human Rights Frame Rosa-Linda Fregoso is a leading feminicide scholar from University of California Santa Cruz who served as a judge on the Permanent People’s Tribunal (PPT) hearings on gender violence and feminicide held in Ciudad Juarez Sept. 21-13, 2014.
Fregoso, along with four other judges, heard 27 cases of feminicide and gender violence, including forced disappearance and trafficking, domestic violence, women under conditions of war, violence against human rights defenders, forced exile, and structural violence. The judges listened, witnessed, validated and rendered judgment on the human rights violations and violence committed by the Mexican government, through the direct action of government officials or indirectly by persons or groups acting with the authorization, support, or complicity of the state.
The Americas Program asked Fregoso about the lack of mobilizations against feminicide in light of the mass demonstrations to protest the disappearance of the teacher’s college students in Guerrero.
“I don’t think feminicides have been necessarily overlooked as much as they have not received consistent support and attention from the media and progressive activists,” said Fregoso.
“There are a number of reasons for the mass mobilizations for the students of Ayotzinapa. For one, the specter of the Tlatelolco massacre of October 1968 continues to haunt Mexico, when security forces killed three hundred student protesters and arrested hundreds more. Similar to the earlier Dirty War, in this new Dirty War - coined the Drug War- the Mexican government has used its forces to suppress political rivals, by subcontracting state violence either to paramilitary force like the Batallón Olimpica of Tlatelolco or via municipal police to drug traffickers involved in Ayotzinapa,” Fregoso told the Americas Program.
Fregoso believes that the Ayotzinapa case represents the tipping point for this new dirty war against civil society. She recounts the human cost of the war on drugs launched by former president Felipe Calderon, which has resulted in over 130,000 people murdered and 30,000 disappeared, with more than 5,000 disappeared in 2014 alone.
“We heard dozens of cases of 'enforced disappearances' during the PPT hearings on gender violences and feminicides, in testimony by mothers, family members, and non-governmental organizations like the Women’s Human Rights Center in Chihuahua, which has been participating for years in the movement for justice for the disappeared. So Ayotzinapa was just the tipping point for the ongoing atrocities and instances of State-sponsored terror against civil society,” stated Fregoso.
The lack of mass mobilization for disappeared women, says the academic, may also have to do with a hierarchy within the human rights regime, in which violations of civil and political rights are seen as more intolerable than encroachment of economic, social, and cultural rights.
“The college students of Ayotzinapa were disappeared for exercising their political rights to protest, whereas the motives behind the disappearances of women and girls are much more varied. Some women have been disappeared and/or murdered for demanding justice or exercising their political and civil rights, but many others have disappeared and/or been murdered because they are members of a social group, as women.”
The reluctance, indifference, disregard, and disrespect of government and state authorities in human rights violations related to feminicide represents a form of indirect state violence that also warrants mass mobilizations, according to Fregoso.
She explains that it is necessary to convince people and human rights activists of the importance of mobilizing for justice on behalf of disappeared women and girls and expand the frame of human rights violations and state-sponsored violence. Expanding the human rights frame implies classifying feminicides as enforced disappearance, a category defined by international law that compels direct or indirect state involvement.
Defined as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State,” according to the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, ‘enforced disappearances’ if applied to feminicides would push government authorities to resolve the overwhelming number of cases. Currently feminicide is classified with ‘disappearances’.
“The connection between feminicides and ‘enforced disappearances’ needs to be made because what we are dealing with in Mexico is a failed state, a feudalized state. One of the mothers who testified at the Hearing on Feminicide and Gender Violence stated about the culprits behind her daughter’s disappearance, ‘They are one in the same, state agents by day and hit men by night,’” concluded Fregoso.
The relentless work of feminist organizers, mothers, human rights scholars and the people who took to the streets this past March 8 in Mexico City and globally prove that the fight against the state-sponsored gender violence gripping Mexico will rest only when justice is served for the thousands of victims of feminicide.
]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14672/feed2Don’t Defund, Just Dismantle the Department of Homeland Securityhttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14649
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14649#commentsThu, 05 Mar 2015 08:31:36 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14649The Republican majority has refused to approve new funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Following the lead of the party’s most conservative members, congressional Republicans will reject a new DHS budget unless President Obama reverses his November 2014 executive order to protect more than 4 million immigrants from deportation. Republicans are right to obstruct the routine annual funding of DHS—but they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
DHS would be an easy target of standard conservative critiques of big government. The third largest federal department is hugely wasteful, unaccountable, unmanageable, and emblematic of governmental mission creep. Yet President Obama has kept increasing the budget and expanding the reach of DHS—his most recent initiative is to increase the department’s role in cybersecurity through $6 billion in contracts with major military and intelligence contractors including Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton.
The DHS funding debate lays bare the disjuncture between the department’s core mission and its actual operations; the political standard has largely ignored the DHS counterterrorism mission. Instead, the dispute over DHS has revolved around the traditional divides over immigration policy.
This is unfortunate. It is time to reconsider the notion of a having a homeland security department. Rather then routinely submitting and approving the budgets of the bureaucratic monstrosity that DHS has become, the executive branch and Congress should consider dismantling DHS. Separating immigration policy from the post-9/11 security framework is fundamental to ending the waste and creating any sustainable and sensible immigration policy reform.
A product of post-9/11 fear-driven politics, DHS is a conglomeration of twenty-two different agencies created by the Bush administration under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with little consideration of the difficulties of merging such diverse agencies as FEMA, Secret Service, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. Prior to the creation of DHS, immigration and border control came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and were regarded primarily as issues of regulation and law. Under DHS, counterterrorism and national security became the dominant framework for immigration and border policy.
President George W. Bush promised that the new federal department would “improve efficiency without growing government.” Furthermore, according to President Bush, the new federal department would eliminate “duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources.” Yet, with more than 240,000 employees, DHS is the third largest federal department—surpassing the Department of Justice and State Department, and with a larger budget than the latter. Democrats and Republicans alike have continually increased the DHS annual budgets.
One of the primary indications of the Department’s dysfunction and lack of direction is the continuing DHS inability to formulate a concise and consistent definition of “homeland security.” There was no consensus on the meaning of the term at the time of its creation. And there was absolutely no consideration of the implications of having governmental functions such as border control, emergency management, and immigration enforcement framed as security operations. Nonetheless, the budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol, has more than doubled since 2003– rising from $27 billion to $59 billion in 2014—and now accounts for 21 percent of the DHS budget, making it the largest DHS agency. The CBP is also the nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
The DHS funding debate lays bare the disjuncture between the department’s core mission and its actual operations.
With each new director and changes in political issues, DHS tweaks the definition of the term and its mission statement. Defining Homeland Security,a January 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service, underscored the existential crisis facing DHS as its counterterrorism mission has lost focus. CRS observed: “Ten years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for ‘homeland security.’ [Instead,] different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions.”
For instance, DHS programs now provide grants to local and state police for purchasing license plate readers, military-grade vehicles, surveillance equipment, and drones. And DHS continues to fund dozens of “fusion centers,” which were established as decentralized counterterrorism intelligence centers but have tracked lawful citizen organizing, including the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Another sign of DHS dysfunction is the low morale of department employees and officials. No other federal department suffers such high rates of job dissatisfaction. Not only does DHS rank as the department with lowest morale, the level of contentedness within DHS has also been dropping at a faster rate than any other department—decreasing 7 percent in the last four years, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
DHS employees and officials cite the department’s stifling bureaucracy and lack of performance measures among the many reasons for plummeting morale. The agency has spent at least $2 million on four studies seeking strategies to improve morale. But no study questioned the viability of a department with so many clashing cultures and one whose operations are so diffuse.
No other federal department is subject to greater congressional oversight. Some ninety congressional committees and subcommittees monitor DHS operations. But this extensive oversight hasn’t produced a more effective and cost-efficient department. To the contrary. Doing the rounds before these congressional committees, DHS officials shape their statements according to the political agendas of committee chairmen, thereby further contributing to the mission drift of DHS.
Rather than providing effective oversight, congressional committees—notably the House Homeland Security Committee and its Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee—function more as boosters and cheerleaders. Eager to display their hardline positions on border security or immigration enforcement, congressional members keep pushing DHS to ramp up its border security operations, resulting in a trail of monumental boondoggles such as the virtual border fence, intelligence fusion centers, deployment of military-grade drones to the border, and a border wall that costs $1–7 billion each mile (depending on the terrain) to construct. Without effective congressional oversight and with constant congressional pressure to expand DHS operations, the department relies heavily on private contractors—many of whom also generously contribute to the election campaigns of committee members—for the management and implementation of core DHS functions, such as cybersecurity.
Over the past dozen years, governmental research and monitoring agencies have published an ever-expanding library of reports that the agency’s waste and failure. Hundreds of reports by the Congressional Research Service, GAO, and the DHS Office of Inspector General have painted a picture of an agency badly divided and highly dysfunctional.
Since its creation, the GAO has identified DHS as a “high risk” government agency, pointing to the continuing challenge of integrating twenty-two agencies into one department. The GAO states that DHS has made progress but that the challenges of managing the mix of diverse agencies continue to impact “the department’s ability to satisfy its missions.” According to the GAO, “DHS’s management and mission risks could have serious consequences for U.S. national and economic security.
After more than a dozen years, DHS is still floundering in its efforts to construct its own headquarters. Originally projected to cost $3.9 billion, DHS headquarters is $1.5 billion over budget and twelve years behind schedule. Completion was projected for this year, but according to the GAO it will not likely be finished until 2026. Meanwhile, the twenty-two DHS agencies remain scattered in fifty offices in the Washington, DC area. The GAO says that DHS should consider alternatives.
Dismantling DHS would be likely easier than consolidating it and refocusing its mission. Indeed, if Obama wants to decouple immigration and border policies from counterterrorism and security policies, dismantling DHS may be the only way.
Otherwise, the recent immigration order—paired with a call for increased funding for border security, the hiring of 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, and a commitment to “crack down on illegal immigration at the border—just looks like playing politics.
Tom Barry directs the Transborder Program at the Center for International Policy and is a contributor to the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org. This news commentary was first published by the Boston Review at: https://www.bostonreview.net/blog/tom-barry-dismantle-department-homeland-security-immigration
]]>The Republican majority has refused to approve new funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Following the lead of the party’s most conservative members, congressional Republicans will reject a new DHS budget unless President Obama reverses his November 2014 executive order to protect more than 4 million immigrants from deportation. Republicans are right to obstruct the routine annual funding of DHS—but they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
DHS would be an easy target of standard conservative critiques of big government. The third largest federal department is hugely wasteful, unaccountable, unmanageable, and emblematic of governmental mission creep. Yet President Obama has kept increasing the budget and expanding the reach of DHS—his most recent initiative is to increase the department’s role in cybersecurity through $6 billion in contracts with major military and intelligence contractors including Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton.
The DHS funding debate lays bare the disjuncture between the department’s core mission and its actual operations; the political standard has largely ignored the DHS counterterrorism mission. Instead, the dispute over DHS has revolved around the traditional divides over immigration policy.
This is unfortunate. It is time to reconsider the notion of a having a homeland security department. Rather then routinely submitting and approving the budgets of the bureaucratic monstrosity that DHS has become, the executive branch and Congress should consider dismantling DHS. Separating immigration policy from the post-9/11 security framework is fundamental to ending the waste and creating any sustainable and sensible immigration policy reform.
A product of post-9/11 fear-driven politics, DHS is a conglomeration of twenty-two different agencies created by the Bush administration under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with little consideration of the difficulties of merging such diverse agencies as FEMA, Secret Service, Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. Prior to the creation of DHS, immigration and border control came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice and were regarded primarily as issues of regulation and law. Under DHS, counterterrorism and national security became the dominant framework for immigration and border policy.
President George W. Bush promised that the new federal department would “improve efficiency without growing government.” Furthermore, according to President Bush, the new federal department would eliminate “duplicative and redundant activities that drain critical homeland security resources.” Yet, with more than 240,000 employees, DHS is the third largest federal department—surpassing the Department of Justice and State Department, and with a larger budget than the latter. Democrats and Republicans alike have continually increased the DHS annual budgets.
One of the primary indications of the Department’s dysfunction and lack of direction is the continuing DHS inability to formulate a concise and consistent definition of “homeland security.” There was no consensus on the meaning of the term at the time of its creation. And there was absolutely no consideration of the implications of having governmental functions such as border control, emergency management, and immigration enforcement framed as security operations. Nonetheless, the budget for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol, has more than doubled since 2003– rising from $27 billion to $59 billion in 2014—and now accounts for 21 percent of the DHS budget, making it the largest DHS agency. The CBP is also the nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
The DHS funding debate lays bare the disjuncture between the department’s core mission and its actual operations.
With each new director and changes in political issues, DHS tweaks the definition of the term and its mission statement. Defining Homeland Security,a January 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service, underscored the existential crisis facing DHS as its counterterrorism mission has lost focus. CRS observed: “Ten years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government does not have a single definition for ‘homeland security.’ [Instead,] different strategic documents and mission statements offer varying missions that are derived from different homeland security definitions.”
For instance, DHS programs now provide grants to local and state police for purchasing license plate readers, military-grade vehicles, surveillance equipment, and drones. And DHS continues to fund dozens of “fusion centers,” which were established as decentralized counterterrorism intelligence centers but have tracked lawful citizen organizing, including the Occupy Wall Street movement.
Another sign of DHS dysfunction is the low morale of department employees and officials. No other federal department suffers such high rates of job dissatisfaction. Not only does DHS rank as the department with lowest morale, the level of contentedness within DHS has also been dropping at a faster rate than any other department—decreasing 7 percent in the last four years, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
DHS employees and officials cite the department’s stifling bureaucracy and lack of performance measures among the many reasons for plummeting morale. The agency has spent at least $2 million on four studies seeking strategies to improve morale. But no study questioned the viability of a department with so many clashing cultures and one whose operations are so diffuse.
No other federal department is subject to greater congressional oversight. Some ninety congressional committees and subcommittees monitor DHS operations. But this extensive oversight hasn’t produced a more effective and cost-efficient department. To the contrary. Doing the rounds before these congressional committees, DHS officials shape their statements according to the political agendas of committee chairmen, thereby further contributing to the mission drift of DHS.
Rather than providing effective oversight, congressional committees—notably the House Homeland Security Committee and its Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee—function more as boosters and cheerleaders. Eager to display their hardline positions on border security or immigration enforcement, congressional members keep pushing DHS to ramp up its border security operations, resulting in a trail of monumental boondoggles such as the virtual border fence, intelligence fusion centers, deployment of military-grade drones to the border, and a border wall that costs $1–7 billion each mile (depending on the terrain) to construct. Without effective congressional oversight and with constant congressional pressure to expand DHS operations, the department relies heavily on private contractors—many of whom also generously contribute to the election campaigns of committee members—for the management and implementation of core DHS functions, such as cybersecurity.
Over the past dozen years, governmental research and monitoring agencies have published an ever-expanding library of reports that the agency’s waste and failure. Hundreds of reports by the Congressional Research Service, GAO, and the DHS Office of Inspector General have painted a picture of an agency badly divided and highly dysfunctional.
Since its creation, the GAO has identified DHS as a “high risk” government agency, pointing to the continuing challenge of integrating twenty-two agencies into one department. The GAO states that DHS has made progress but that the challenges of managing the mix of diverse agencies continue to impact “the department’s ability to satisfy its missions.” According to the GAO, “DHS’s management and mission risks could have serious consequences for U.S. national and economic security.
After more than a dozen years, DHS is still floundering in its efforts to construct its own headquarters. Originally projected to cost $3.9 billion, DHS headquarters is $1.5 billion over budget and twelve years behind schedule. Completion was projected for this year, but according to the GAO it will not likely be finished until 2026. Meanwhile, the twenty-two DHS agencies remain scattered in fifty offices in the Washington, DC area. The GAO says that DHS should consider alternatives.
Dismantling DHS would be likely easier than consolidating it and refocusing its mission. Indeed, if Obama wants to decouple immigration and border policies from counterterrorism and security policies, dismantling DHS may be the only way.
Otherwise, the recent immigration order—paired with a call for increased funding for border security, the hiring of 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, and a commitment to “crack down on illegal immigration at the border—just looks like playing politics.
Tom Barry directs the Transborder Program at the Center for International Policy and is a contributor to the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org. This news commentary was first published by the Boston Review at: https://www.bostonreview.net/blog/tom-barry-dismantle-department-homeland-security-immigration
]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14649/feed2Battling Barbarism in Paradise: Zihuatanejo’s Popular Movementhttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14645
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14645#commentsThu, 05 Mar 2015 07:46:55 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14645At the entrance to city hall in Zihuatanejo, Mexico, banners drape the fence and the shuttered gate. One message reads: "43 students still missing and something of us disappeared with them. Justice for Ayotizinapa."
The city hall in the Guerrero coastal city was occupied by protesters during the wave of mass outrage that swept Mexico and the world following the brutal killings and forced disappearances of students from the Ayotzinapa rural teachers' college by police and gunmen linked to organized crime in Iguala, Guerrero, last September.
Former Iguala Mayor Luis Abarca and dozens of other suspects are under arrest in connection with the bloodbath.
Although the Zihuatanejo protesters, now organized as the Popular Azuetense Movement (MPA), do not have an ongoing presence at the government complex, which nevertheless has been virtually abandoned by the local authorities, they conduct weekly meetings there to discuss and strategize the future course of the local Ayotzinapa justice movement.“The movement is reactivating, even though many thought it would fall apart,” educator and MPA activist Malaquias Perez told a recent gathering.
Linked to the larger National Popular Assembly, a grouping of social movements that emerged after the Ayotzinapa atrocity, the MPA includes teachers, students, environmentalists and others with a vision for a better world. Educators from the Guerrero State Coordinator of Education Workers (Ceteg) play an important role in the movement.The name "Azuetense" comes from the title of the municipality for which Zihuatanejo serves as the seat of government, Zihutanejo de Azuetense.In the MPA, decisions are made democratically by majority vote, said member Benjamin Armenta. "This is a democratic movement. No one is more important than the other," Armenta said.
Reflecting the National Popular Assembly's current priorities, the MPA works for the safe return of the 43 disappeared Ayotzinapa students; punishment for the parties guilty of the massive human rights violation; the ouster of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto; no repression against activists; and the cancellation of the June 7 federal and state elections.Additionally, the MPA supports the reversal of reforms instituted by the Pena Nieto administration and allied political parties during the last two years. "We are demanding that all the reforms-economic, legal, education and energy-be cancelled," Armenta added.
Since its formation late last year, the MPA has participated in Ayotzinapa justice demonstrations in the state capital of Chilpancingo; protested outside the military base in nearby Petatlan; "symbolically" closed the Zihuatanejo office of the National Electoral Institute, the agency charged with organizing next June's elections; and coordinated classroom visits by Ayotzinapa students and victims' parents in Zihuatanejo and two adjacent municipalities.On Feb. 8, the MPA scored something of a public relations victory. The occasion was the certification ceremony for Zihuatanejo as a world city of peace under the non-profit International Cities of Peace initiative.
The ceremony was organized by the Zihuatanejo Peace Committee, headed by Wendy Carbajal Sotelo. “This is a very important day for us,” Carbajal said in her remarks, adding that the certification would help cultivate a “culture of peace” in Zihuatanejo and Guerrero. Carbajal is the wife of former Zihuatanejo Mayor Eric Fernandez. A member of the President Pena Nieto's Institutional Revolutionary Party, Fernandez left office last month to run for a seat in the federal congress.Developed in conjunction with the Detroit Peace Center and the World Peace Prayer Center, the peace certification requires the formation of a local peace committee with civil society and tourism industry participation, the construction of a peace monument, the celebration of an annual peace day and development of a curriculum for peace education in local schools.
Following speeches by Carbajal and others, interim Guerrero Governor Rogelio Ortega strode up to the stage. Ironically, heavily armed military and police patrols cruised by as the peace event progressed.
As Ortega prepared to speak, a small group of MPA activists in the crowd of hundreds held up a banner and began loudly counting from one to forty-three. Silence engulfed the gathering as the MPA contingent broke into chants of "Ayotzi Lives!" and "The Struggle Continues." Hearty applause emanated from a crowd that included many school girls dressed in white.
In his speech, Ortega conceded points to the MPA. "Peace can't be achieved without justice, and the MPA demands for the presentation of the 43 are correct," the interim governor said.But Ortega distsnced himself from the MPA's demand to suspend state elections by urging a vote for deserving candidates and electoral punishment for non-deserving ones. Electoral participation was necessary, he said, "so we will never have another mayor like Abarca, a municipal police force like in Iguala and a tragedy like the 43."
Prior to the event, MPA activists said they were approached by municipal officials and asked to meet with a representative from the United Nations who was in town for the peace certification.Armenta later characterized the proposed meeting a "fraud," with the supposed UN official turning out to be the head of a grouping of non-governmental organizations that consult with the world body.
"I think the intention was to promote Zihuatanejo as a (tourist) destination in peace for consumption purposes," Armenta contended. "It was a deception on the part of the authorities."
Situated on the Costa Grande, Zihuatanejo and the neighboring resort of Ixtapa are the second most important tourist getaway in Guerrero. Locals are anxious to portray their home town as a haven of peace and tranquility. But in recent years, Zihuatanejo and Ixtapa have suffered economically from the well-publicized violence in Mexico.
Accordingly, the Mexican navy and other security forces have drawn a ring around the coastal community. Every winter, thousands of Canadian and U.S. tourists make their way to the tropical warmth of Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo to escape the deep freezes of an ecologically collapsing planet. Many loudly proclaim their arrival in "Paradise."
Recently, the MPA's has focused its work on revitalizing the teachers' movement and gearing up to oppose the June elections.
In February, thousands of teachers protested in the streets of Zihuatanejo and Guerrero on multiple occasions. While the demand for the return of the 43 still resounded everywhere, current and former teachers protested delays in receiving paychecks, Christmas bonuses and pensions.At another recent gathering, the MPA’s Malaquias Perez said the larger social movement had provided "an opening" for revisiting questions of "labor stability" at a time when outsourcing, temporary contracts and attacks on unions are intensifying in the education sector, thanks in part to the 2013 federal education reform that Ceteg and the MPA want tossed out. Talk of a long strike has been in the air.
Addressing a group of teachers, Perez urged his colleagues to be careful to cover their bases in any strike by following all the legal procedures and enlisting the support of parents. "Who are our best allies?" he asked fellow teachers. "The children and the parents."The activist appealed for unity in a state where different educator unions operate. “If you all go out on your own, we won’t achieve our objectives,” he intoned. “We are easy prey if we go out alone.”
Rekindled by the Ayotzinapa justice movement, the renewed teacher mobilizations, face repression. The television troika of Televisa, TV Azteca and Milenio is cranking up its long-running teacher bashing "news" machine, and the federal government is putting pressure on the states to not pay absent teachers. In tense Chilpancingo, where the Ceteg has maintained a protest encampment for months, state and federal riot squads stand at the ready.Perhaps the most controversial position of the MPA-and the National Popular Assembly is the call for no elections on June 7.
The demand raises fundamental questions about the future of Mexico. Is the call a backsliding on democracy? If many voters do not participate and the elections proceed as scheduled, will the most retrograde forces win? If there are no elections, how will governance take place?Armenta argued that the prerequisites for fair elections simply do not exist in Guerrero, a state where crime and political corruption are virtually inseparable, as evidenced by the Iguala/Ayotzinapa saga or the recent arrests of members of the former governor's family and associates on charges of embezzling and laundering tens of millions of dollars in public works and security contracts, even as violence spun out of control."Whoever is elected will be the same as the old one. This is a state that is dominated by the narco," Armenta insists. "We don't have a genuine democracy. We have a party system in which the results are the same and things don't change. We have to reposition democracy."Armenta advocated a national "pause" so Mexicans can devise a new constitutional order that recognizes forms of decision-making like popular plebiscites. Zero elections in Guerrero, he adds, will deliver "a message to the entire country." According to Armenta, the MPA plans to urge the public not to vote on June 7 by spreading the message via sound trucks and other means.
Guerrero's political parties, meanwhile, plow ahead as if no crisis exists, plastering the streets and airwaves with election propaganda and fielding a host of questionable candidates.
The MPA confronts not only the same challenges as the broader Ayotzinapa justice movement, but also issues related to Zihuatanejo's tourist-driven economy and local pressures to avoid any hint of conflict in a place where large numbers of foreigners visit.
In this complex context, the MPA is carving out its own local identity and base while working with larger forces for common goals. The grassroots movements in the state of Guerrero grapple with different conditions in different places. The movement in the La Montana region is necessarily different than the one in Zihuatanejo. In Mexico, the dialectics of protest and resistance are woven by regional economies, historic and contemporary political conditions, culture, and ethnicity.
Grassroots movements have had to fend off attacks from various quarters. Ceteg organizer and MPA member Josefina Saucedo recalled efforts to pit the residents of Iguala against Ayotzinapa activists.The attempt failed, Saucedo said, in large part because a reign of terror in Iguala preceded the attack on the Ayotzinapa students. Consequently, many residents of the violence-torn city identified with the pain of the students and parents, Saucedo said.According to the Guerrero daily El Sur, hundreds of people are listed as disappeared in Iguala and neighboring municipalities. Regularly, relatives of the disappeared search and dig out bodies from clandestine graves, with the number of remains recovered in less than three months now nudging 50.
“Their children and friends are disappeared,” Saucedo added. Organized crime is in collusion with the military and state and municipal police. The whole system is a pig-sty.”
Zihuatanejo, too, has experienced episodes of killing and kidnapping, while enduring decades of political corruption.
“We have to struggle for the 43, but in reality we are struggling for ourselves,” Armenta reflected. “There is a national sentiment of ‘Enough is Enough.’ The neurological center is Ayotzinapa, but it extends all across the country."]]>At the entrance to city hall in Zihuatanejo, Mexico, banners drape the fence and the shuttered gate. One message reads: "43 students still missing and something of us disappeared with them. Justice for Ayotizinapa."
The city hall in the Guerrero coastal city was occupied by protesters during the wave of mass outrage that swept Mexico and the world following the brutal killings and forced disappearances of students from the Ayotzinapa rural teachers' college by police and gunmen linked to organized crime in Iguala, Guerrero, last September.
Former Iguala Mayor Luis Abarca and dozens of other suspects are under arrest in connection with the bloodbath.
Although the Zihuatanejo protesters, now organized as the Popular Azuetense Movement (MPA), do not have an ongoing presence at the government complex, which nevertheless has been virtually abandoned by the local authorities, they conduct weekly meetings there to discuss and strategize the future course of the local Ayotzinapa justice movement.“The movement is reactivating, even though many thought it would fall apart,” educator and MPA activist Malaquias Perez told a recent gathering.
Linked to the larger National Popular Assembly, a grouping of social movements that emerged after the Ayotzinapa atrocity, the MPA includes teachers, students, environmentalists and others with a vision for a better world. Educators from the Guerrero State Coordinator of Education Workers (Ceteg) play an important role in the movement.The name "Azuetense" comes from the title of the municipality for which Zihuatanejo serves as the seat of government, Zihutanejo de Azuetense.In the MPA, decisions are made democratically by majority vote, said member Benjamin Armenta. "This is a democratic movement. No one is more important than the other," Armenta said.
Reflecting the National Popular Assembly's current priorities, the MPA works for the safe return of the 43 disappeared Ayotzinapa students; punishment for the parties guilty of the massive human rights violation; the ouster of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto; no repression against activists; and the cancellation of the June 7 federal and state elections.Additionally, the MPA supports the reversal of reforms instituted by the Pena Nieto administration and allied political parties during the last two years. "We are demanding that all the reforms-economic, legal, education and energy-be cancelled," Armenta added.
Since its formation late last year, the MPA has participated in Ayotzinapa justice demonstrations in the state capital of Chilpancingo; protested outside the military base in nearby Petatlan; "symbolically" closed the Zihuatanejo office of the National Electoral Institute, the agency charged with organizing next June's elections; and coordinated classroom visits by Ayotzinapa students and victims' parents in Zihuatanejo and two adjacent municipalities.On Feb. 8, the MPA scored something of a public relations victory. The occasion was the certification ceremony for Zihuatanejo as a world city of peace under the non-profit International Cities of Peace initiative.
The ceremony was organized by the Zihuatanejo Peace Committee, headed by Wendy Carbajal Sotelo. “This is a very important day for us,” Carbajal said in her remarks, adding that the certification would help cultivate a “culture of peace” in Zihuatanejo and Guerrero. Carbajal is the wife of former Zihuatanejo Mayor Eric Fernandez. A member of the President Pena Nieto's Institutional Revolutionary Party, Fernandez left office last month to run for a seat in the federal congress.Developed in conjunction with the Detroit Peace Center and the World Peace Prayer Center, the peace certification requires the formation of a local peace committee with civil society and tourism industry participation, the construction of a peace monument, the celebration of an annual peace day and development of a curriculum for peace education in local schools.
Following speeches by Carbajal and others, interim Guerrero Governor Rogelio Ortega strode up to the stage. Ironically, heavily armed military and police patrols cruised by as the peace event progressed.
As Ortega prepared to speak, a small group of MPA activists in the crowd of hundreds held up a banner and began loudly counting from one to forty-three. Silence engulfed the gathering as the MPA contingent broke into chants of "Ayotzi Lives!" and "The Struggle Continues." Hearty applause emanated from a crowd that included many school girls dressed in white.
In his speech, Ortega conceded points to the MPA. "Peace can't be achieved without justice, and the MPA demands for the presentation of the 43 are correct," the interim governor said.But Ortega distsnced himself from the MPA's demand to suspend state elections by urging a vote for deserving candidates and electoral punishment for non-deserving ones. Electoral participation was necessary, he said, "so we will never have another mayor like Abarca, a municipal police force like in Iguala and a tragedy like the 43."
Prior to the event, MPA activists said they were approached by municipal officials and asked to meet with a representative from the United Nations who was in town for the peace certification.Armenta later characterized the proposed meeting a "fraud," with the supposed UN official turning out to be the head of a grouping of non-governmental organizations that consult with the world body.
"I think the intention was to promote Zihuatanejo as a (tourist) destination in peace for consumption purposes," Armenta contended. "It was a deception on the part of the authorities."
Situated on the Costa Grande, Zihuatanejo and the neighboring resort of Ixtapa are the second most important tourist getaway in Guerrero. Locals are anxious to portray their home town as a haven of peace and tranquility. But in recent years, Zihuatanejo and Ixtapa have suffered economically from the well-publicized violence in Mexico.
Accordingly, the Mexican navy and other security forces have drawn a ring around the coastal community. Every winter, thousands of Canadian and U.S. tourists make their way to the tropical warmth of Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo to escape the deep freezes of an ecologically collapsing planet. Many loudly proclaim their arrival in "Paradise."
Recently, the MPA's has focused its work on revitalizing the teachers' movement and gearing up to oppose the June elections.
In February, thousands of teachers protested in the streets of Zihuatanejo and Guerrero on multiple occasions. While the demand for the return of the 43 still resounded everywhere, current and former teachers protested delays in receiving paychecks, Christmas bonuses and pensions.At another recent gathering, the MPA’s Malaquias Perez said the larger social movement had provided "an opening" for revisiting questions of "labor stability" at a time when outsourcing, temporary contracts and attacks on unions are intensifying in the education sector, thanks in part to the 2013 federal education reform that Ceteg and the MPA want tossed out. Talk of a long strike has been in the air.
Addressing a group of teachers, Perez urged his colleagues to be careful to cover their bases in any strike by following all the legal procedures and enlisting the support of parents. "Who are our best allies?" he asked fellow teachers. "The children and the parents."The activist appealed for unity in a state where different educator unions operate. “If you all go out on your own, we won’t achieve our objectives,” he intoned. “We are easy prey if we go out alone.”
Rekindled by the Ayotzinapa justice movement, the renewed teacher mobilizations, face repression. The television troika of Televisa, TV Azteca and Milenio is cranking up its long-running teacher bashing "news" machine, and the federal government is putting pressure on the states to not pay absent teachers. In tense Chilpancingo, where the Ceteg has maintained a protest encampment for months, state and federal riot squads stand at the ready.Perhaps the most controversial position of the MPA-and the National Popular Assembly is the call for no elections on June 7.
The demand raises fundamental questions about the future of Mexico. Is the call a backsliding on democracy? If many voters do not participate and the elections proceed as scheduled, will the most retrograde forces win? If there are no elections, how will governance take place?Armenta argued that the prerequisites for fair elections simply do not exist in Guerrero, a state where crime and political corruption are virtually inseparable, as evidenced by the Iguala/Ayotzinapa saga or the recent arrests of members of the former governor's family and associates on charges of embezzling and laundering tens of millions of dollars in public works and security contracts, even as violence spun out of control."Whoever is elected will be the same as the old one. This is a state that is dominated by the narco," Armenta insists. "We don't have a genuine democracy. We have a party system in which the results are the same and things don't change. We have to reposition democracy."Armenta advocated a national "pause" so Mexicans can devise a new constitutional order that recognizes forms of decision-making like popular plebiscites. Zero elections in Guerrero, he adds, will deliver "a message to the entire country." According to Armenta, the MPA plans to urge the public not to vote on June 7 by spreading the message via sound trucks and other means.
Guerrero's political parties, meanwhile, plow ahead as if no crisis exists, plastering the streets and airwaves with election propaganda and fielding a host of questionable candidates.
The MPA confronts not only the same challenges as the broader Ayotzinapa justice movement, but also issues related to Zihuatanejo's tourist-driven economy and local pressures to avoid any hint of conflict in a place where large numbers of foreigners visit.
In this complex context, the MPA is carving out its own local identity and base while working with larger forces for common goals. The grassroots movements in the state of Guerrero grapple with different conditions in different places. The movement in the La Montana region is necessarily different than the one in Zihuatanejo. In Mexico, the dialectics of protest and resistance are woven by regional economies, historic and contemporary political conditions, culture, and ethnicity.
Grassroots movements have had to fend off attacks from various quarters. Ceteg organizer and MPA member Josefina Saucedo recalled efforts to pit the residents of Iguala against Ayotzinapa activists.The attempt failed, Saucedo said, in large part because a reign of terror in Iguala preceded the attack on the Ayotzinapa students. Consequently, many residents of the violence-torn city identified with the pain of the students and parents, Saucedo said.According to the Guerrero daily El Sur, hundreds of people are listed as disappeared in Iguala and neighboring municipalities. Regularly, relatives of the disappeared search and dig out bodies from clandestine graves, with the number of remains recovered in less than three months now nudging 50.
“Their children and friends are disappeared,” Saucedo added. Organized crime is in collusion with the military and state and municipal police. The whole system is a pig-sty.”
Zihuatanejo, too, has experienced episodes of killing and kidnapping, while enduring decades of political corruption.
“We have to struggle for the 43, but in reality we are struggling for ourselves,” Armenta reflected. “There is a national sentiment of ‘Enough is Enough.’ The neurological center is Ayotzinapa, but it extends all across the country."]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14645/feed0Government Documents Reveal Canadian Embassy Backed Mining Abuses in Mexicohttp://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14636
http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14636#commentsThu, 26 Feb 2015 01:17:38 +0000http://www.cipamericas.org/?p=14636By Mining Watch Canada and United Steelworkers
A report based on internal documents obtained from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) concludes that Canadian diplomats in Mexico were complicit in Toronto-based Excellon Resources Inc.’s efforts to avoid redressing a violated land use contract and poor working conditions, and supported repression against a peaceful protest.
The report from MiningWatch Canada and the United Steelworkers is based on a careful review of nearly 250 pages obtained from DFATD during a period of heightened conflict and repression from July to November 2012.
At this time, landowners from the Ejido La Sierrita and workers from Local 309 of the National Miners Union at Excellon’s La Platosa mine undertook a peaceful protest for several months, after filing two formal complaints in Canada alleging serious land and labour rights violations without results.
Despite full knowledge of these complaints and Excellon’s refusal to engage in dialogue to address them, the Canadian Embassy planned to share information with Excellon that was gathered from community members and their legal counsel without their consent, while helping the company forge high level connections that led to violent repression against the protest.
“Nowhere in the internal communication reviewed for this study did we find evidence of Canada’s oft-stated policy that it encourages Canadian mining companies to act responsibly and to respect international standards. The Canadian Embassy’s one-sided support for Excellon is a blatant example of Canadian government promotion of corporate interests at the expense of workers and communities,” remarked Ken Neumann, Canadian National Director for the United Steelworkers.
The report notes that the behaviour of the Embassy could form part of a disturbing trend present in other cases and countries as well. Mexico is the principal destination for Canadian mining investment outside of Canada. Conflicts between the Canadian mining companies and local communites and workers are frequent.
Forewarned that Mexican police, army, and government officials were meeting to plan to evict the protest in response to the Embassy and company lobby, one trade commissioner wished the company well, the night before police and army moved in on the protest camp.
“The Embassy’s apparent disregard for the safety of peaceful protestors in a country where human rights activists, journalists, and community leaders are being injured and killed far too often is appalling. These findings confirm our fears that the Canadian government’s policy to harness its whole diplomatic corps to serve private interests abroad – something it calls “economic diplomacy” and announced in its Global Markets Action Plan – is bound to contribute to further harm,” said Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.
The disdain and repression that the Ejido La Sierrita members experienced in 2012 ended Excellon’s welcome in their community. The community has since taken action to rescind its contract with Excellon and thereby bring their relationship with the company to an end and close the silver, lead, and zinc mine.
The new report by Mining Watch Canada and United Steelworkers entitled "Unearthing Canadian Complicity: Excellon Resources, the Canadian Embassy and the Violation of Land and Labour Rights in Durango, Mexico" describes in detail the behaviour of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico.
According to the report, review of the disclosed documents revealed the following:

There was a high degree of contact between the Embassy and Excellon management, including a clear intention on the Embassy’s part to share information gathered from community members and their legal counsel with the company without their consent;

The Embassy actively assisted the company by lobbying key Mexican officials;

Despite high rates of violent repression in Mexico at the hands of state armed forces, the Embassy accepted that repression be used against the Ejido La Sierrita’s peaceful protests. One trade commissioner went so far as to wish the company well the night before police and army moved in on the encampment that Ejido members had installed on private land;

Throughout, there was a deafening silence from the Embassy with regard to any concerns pertaining to Excellon’s conduct and its refusal to address repeated complaints from workers and the community through dialogue and negotiation;

Absent from the 244 pages obtained from DFATD is any evidence that the Embassy urged Excellon to enter into dialogue with the Ejido, to address outstanding social and environmental issues, to demonstrate respect for the freedom of association of company workers, to respect their right to protest peacefully, to avoid the use of armed repression against a peaceful protest, or to avoid disproportionate use of force when it knew armed forces would evict the community protest.

Read the Full Report here: http://www.miningwatch.ca/sites/www.miningwatch.ca/files/excellon_report_2015-02-23.pdf (English)
]]>By Mining Watch Canada and United Steelworkers
A report based on internal documents obtained from the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) concludes that Canadian diplomats in Mexico were complicit in Toronto-based Excellon Resources Inc.’s efforts to avoid redressing a violated land use contract and poor working conditions, and supported repression against a peaceful protest.
The report from MiningWatch Canada and the United Steelworkers is based on a careful review of nearly 250 pages obtained from DFATD during a period of heightened conflict and repression from July to November 2012.
At this time, landowners from the Ejido La Sierrita and workers from Local 309 of the National Miners Union at Excellon’s La Platosa mine undertook a peaceful protest for several months, after filing two formal complaints in Canada alleging serious land and labour rights violations without results.
Despite full knowledge of these complaints and Excellon’s refusal to engage in dialogue to address them, the Canadian Embassy planned to share information with Excellon that was gathered from community members and their legal counsel without their consent, while helping the company forge high level connections that led to violent repression against the protest.
“Nowhere in the internal communication reviewed for this study did we find evidence of Canada’s oft-stated policy that it encourages Canadian mining companies to act responsibly and to respect international standards. The Canadian Embassy’s one-sided support for Excellon is a blatant example of Canadian government promotion of corporate interests at the expense of workers and communities,” remarked Ken Neumann, Canadian National Director for the United Steelworkers.
The report notes that the behaviour of the Embassy could form part of a disturbing trend present in other cases and countries as well. Mexico is the principal destination for Canadian mining investment outside of Canada. Conflicts between the Canadian mining companies and local communites and workers are frequent.
Forewarned that Mexican police, army, and government officials were meeting to plan to evict the protest in response to the Embassy and company lobby, one trade commissioner wished the company well, the night before police and army moved in on the protest camp.
“The Embassy’s apparent disregard for the safety of peaceful protestors in a country where human rights activists, journalists, and community leaders are being injured and killed far too often is appalling. These findings confirm our fears that the Canadian government’s policy to harness its whole diplomatic corps to serve private interests abroad – something it calls “economic diplomacy” and announced in its Global Markets Action Plan – is bound to contribute to further harm,” said Jen Moore, Latin America Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada.
The disdain and repression that the Ejido La Sierrita members experienced in 2012 ended Excellon’s welcome in their community. The community has since taken action to rescind its contract with Excellon and thereby bring their relationship with the company to an end and close the silver, lead, and zinc mine.
The new report by Mining Watch Canada and United Steelworkers entitled "Unearthing Canadian Complicity: Excellon Resources, the Canadian Embassy and the Violation of Land and Labour Rights in Durango, Mexico" describes in detail the behaviour of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico.
According to the report, review of the disclosed documents revealed the following:

There was a high degree of contact between the Embassy and Excellon management, including a clear intention on the Embassy’s part to share information gathered from community members and their legal counsel with the company without their consent;

The Embassy actively assisted the company by lobbying key Mexican officials;

Despite high rates of violent repression in Mexico at the hands of state armed forces, the Embassy accepted that repression be used against the Ejido La Sierrita’s peaceful protests. One trade commissioner went so far as to wish the company well the night before police and army moved in on the encampment that Ejido members had installed on private land;

Throughout, there was a deafening silence from the Embassy with regard to any concerns pertaining to Excellon’s conduct and its refusal to address repeated complaints from workers and the community through dialogue and negotiation;

Absent from the 244 pages obtained from DFATD is any evidence that the Embassy urged Excellon to enter into dialogue with the Ejido, to address outstanding social and environmental issues, to demonstrate respect for the freedom of association of company workers, to respect their right to protest peacefully, to avoid the use of armed repression against a peaceful protest, or to avoid disproportionate use of force when it knew armed forces would evict the community protest.

President Barack Obama once again has made it plain that he intends to close Guantanamo. Those who doubted his previous promises on immigrant rights and Cuba should realize that he is serious about Guantanamo as well.

Most of the remaining 122 Guantanamo detainees, including 47 of 54 already cleared for release, are from Yemen. Obama cannot realistically send them back to that unstable center of civil strife and chaos. He therefore is proceeding to release small handfuls of detainees to places like Uruguay while asking congressional Republicans to lift their ban on sending Guantanamo detainees to high-security U.S. prisons. If those efforts prove fruitless, there now is a new way to achieve his promise:
Return Guantanamo to Cuban sovereignty, where it belongs historically.
Arrange to release the remaining detainees to Cuban soil under Cuban security. Involve regional diplomats, the United Nations and the Vatican in working out the arrangements.
With changing times, there is no national security or commercial argument for Guantanamo remaining under U.S. control. The base is a complete anachronism on the one hand, and a constant blight on America's global reputation.
The 45-square mile Guantanamo base was taken as a consequence of the 1901 Platt amendment, over the objections of a Cuban constitutional assembly. It was meant to locate coaling or naval stations for the projection of American military power in the region. The underlying strategic reason was declared by the island's American overseer, Col. Leonard Wood, chief commander of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, in 1901:

With the control which we have over Cuba, a control which will soon undoubtedly become possession ... we shall soon practically control the sugar trade of the world ... the island will gradually become Americanized and we shall have in time one of the richest and most desirable possessions in the world.

Those days are over, and so is the Cold War, when the base was considered strategic for rapid response to guerrilla insurgencies or Soviet expansion. Similarly, the Panama Canal was returned to Panama in 1977 without any significant geopolitical consequences, although it cost Jimmy Carter serious political capital at home.
Today, when the U.S. is attempting to build more constructive relations with Latin America and facing non-military competitors like China for influence, Guantanamo is a burden.
It will shock many Americans to realize that the U.S. attempts to pay Cuba less than $5,000 annually for use of the base, and that the Cubans have not cashed any of the checks (since an accidental cashing in 1959, according to Castro), a gesture of refusal that has lasted more than a century.
The Cubans have rightly worried in past decades that Guantanamo would be used as a launching pad for American troops against Cuba. Sixteen thousand U.S. Marines were deployed there during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The base was a support station for the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti. U.S. military exercises have been conducted on a number of occasions, including beach landings by Marines.
The prestige of the U.S. Navy, which is broadly questioned as gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, is hardly a reason to defend a base whose purposes are obsolete. The Obama administration should be conducting talks at the highest levels, if it has not already begun, in order to correct the injustice of Guantanamo not only as a torture site but as a violation of the sovereignty of a state with whom our government finally is normalizing relations.

Tom Hayden is Director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center, organizer and author and editor of more than twenty books. He can be found on Twitter at:www.twitter.com/@TomEHayden]]>

President Barack Obama once again has made it plain that he intends to close Guantanamo. Those who doubted his previous promises on immigrant rights and Cuba should realize that he is serious about Guantanamo as well.

Most of the remaining 122 Guantanamo detainees, including 47 of 54 already cleared for release, are from Yemen. Obama cannot realistically send them back to that unstable center of civil strife and chaos. He therefore is proceeding to release small handfuls of detainees to places like Uruguay while asking congressional Republicans to lift their ban on sending Guantanamo detainees to high-security U.S. prisons. If those efforts prove fruitless, there now is a new way to achieve his promise:
Return Guantanamo to Cuban sovereignty, where it belongs historically.
Arrange to release the remaining detainees to Cuban soil under Cuban security. Involve regional diplomats, the United Nations and the Vatican in working out the arrangements.
With changing times, there is no national security or commercial argument for Guantanamo remaining under U.S. control. The base is a complete anachronism on the one hand, and a constant blight on America's global reputation.
The 45-square mile Guantanamo base was taken as a consequence of the 1901 Platt amendment, over the objections of a Cuban constitutional assembly. It was meant to locate coaling or naval stations for the projection of American military power in the region. The underlying strategic reason was declared by the island's American overseer, Col. Leonard Wood, chief commander of Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders, in 1901:

With the control which we have over Cuba, a control which will soon undoubtedly become possession ... we shall soon practically control the sugar trade of the world ... the island will gradually become Americanized and we shall have in time one of the richest and most desirable possessions in the world.

Those days are over, and so is the Cold War, when the base was considered strategic for rapid response to guerrilla insurgencies or Soviet expansion. Similarly, the Panama Canal was returned to Panama in 1977 without any significant geopolitical consequences, although it cost Jimmy Carter serious political capital at home.
Today, when the U.S. is attempting to build more constructive relations with Latin America and facing non-military competitors like China for influence, Guantanamo is a burden.
It will shock many Americans to realize that the U.S. attempts to pay Cuba less than $5,000 annually for use of the base, and that the Cubans have not cashed any of the checks (since an accidental cashing in 1959, according to Castro), a gesture of refusal that has lasted more than a century.
The Cubans have rightly worried in past decades that Guantanamo would be used as a launching pad for American troops against Cuba. Sixteen thousand U.S. Marines were deployed there during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The base was a support station for the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti. U.S. military exercises have been conducted on a number of occasions, including beach landings by Marines.
The prestige of the U.S. Navy, which is broadly questioned as gunboat diplomacy in Latin America, is hardly a reason to defend a base whose purposes are obsolete. The Obama administration should be conducting talks at the highest levels, if it has not already begun, in order to correct the injustice of Guantanamo not only as a torture site but as a violation of the sovereignty of a state with whom our government finally is normalizing relations.

Tom Hayden is Director of the Peace and Justice Resource Center, organizer and author and editor of more than twenty books. He can be found on Twitter at:www.twitter.com/@TomEHayden]]>http://www.cipamericas.org/archives/14563/feed1